Love as Pedagogy

Love as Pedagogy

Love as Pedagogy

Tim Loreman Concordia University College of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM/BOSTON/TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6091-482-9 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-483-6 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-484-3 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

DEDICATION

For my family.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. ix 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Kindness and Empathy in Pedagogy ................................................................. 15 3. Intimacy and Bonding in Pedagogy................................................................... 33 4. Sacrifice, Forgiveness and Pedagogy ................................................................ 49 5. Community and Acceptance.............................................................................. 67 6. Love in Action: A Case Study ........................................................................... 83 7. Infusing Love into Daily Pedagogy ................................................................... 99 References............................................................................................................ 109

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the support of my family this book could never have been written. Thank you for your love and encouragement. Professor Chris Forlin at the Hong Kong Institute for Education was instrumental in helping to bring this project to completion. Chris showed all the qualities of an outstanding colleague, mentor, and friend as she kindly read through and offered helpful critiques of each chapter as I completed them one by one and sent them off to her. Her insights, encouragement, and willingness to edit my clumsy drafts on planes, trains, and at her desk are deeply appreciated. If this book has some semblance of quality it is largely due to her contribution. I am grateful to the school district, school, and individual participants in the case study that forms the majority of Chapter Six for welcoming my research team and I. I would also like to thank my friends and collaborators in that team, especially Judy Lupart, Donna McGhie-Richmond, Rob McGarva, Kathy Hickey, Margaret Thompson, Jennifer Barber, Angie Irvine, and our research assistants from both Concordia University College of Alberta and the University of Alberta. Without this team the case study in Chapter Six could not have come to fruition. Professor Nicola Cuomo and colleagues in the Giovanni Maria Bertin Department of Educational Science and the Institute of Advanced Studies at the University of Bologna in Italy are acknowledged and thanked. I am grateful for the hospitality afforded to me and the opportunities to discuss and the ideas contained in this book during my time there as a Senior Visiting Fellow in 2010. In short, to a very large degree this work has been improved by the work of, and suggestions from, my family and many friends and colleagues, however, I did not always choose to take their advice and so accept full responsibility for any failings this work might have.

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

CONSIDERING LOVE, LEARNING AND PEDAGOGY

The positive impact love can have on learning has been succinctly described by Cho (2005) who argues that “love has the power to inspire students to seek after knowledge, love can unite the teacher and student in the quest for knowledge, and the love of learning can even empower students to challenge knowledge thereby pushing its limits” (p. 79). This book is predicated on the notion that love is a product of, and a necessary element to, successful and meaningful teaching and learning. Cho argues that there is a place for love in pedagogy. This book views love as essential to meaningful positive learning experiences, and is therefore a topic of critical importance for educators. While most educators acknowledge the need for caring environments in which warm, personal relationships are fostered between teacher and learner, few have taken the time to address what this actually means. Part of the reason for this might be found in a general discomfort with talking about love and education, and also fears that writing about love and pedagogy might provide some with the motivation to cross professional and ethical boundaries with those whom they teach. The result is that there is a rather large gap in the academic discourse that this text seeks to help to remedy. This book gathers together a collection of interrelated notions under the banner of love, describing how love is essential to teaching and learning. The aim is to provide a serious but accessible and plainlanguage treatment of the topic, along with a discussion of professionally and ethically appropriate ways in which love can be used as the fundamental basis of pedagogical work. This book might challenge conventional views on teaching and learning, and readers are encouraged to critique and reflect on not only their own practices, but those evident in the contexts and systems in which they work. Formal education has, by degrees, arrived at a point where the notion of keeping a professional distance between teacher and student is encouraged and often required. This is arguably to the detriment of both parties, and, further, to society in general as these templates for relationships are applied in wider contexts, getting in the way of our connections to one another. But there is hope, and a pathway towards redressing this imbalance exists. Love as pedagogy has been more frequently preserved in informal contexts, such as a father teaching his daughter how to fly a kite, or a family friend teaching a child how to float on his back during a day at the beach. In these sorts of situations the interactions are intimate, safe, caring, and warm. The comfort level both parties feel enhances and enriches the learning experiences, making them memorable and effective. These sorts of interactions, so vital to learning, have been for one reason or another increasingly sanitised out of our formal educational contexts. Our systems 1

CHAPTER 1

of formal education have become impersonal and, in the view of some, ineffective as a result (Sarason, 1998; Wise, 2008). A radical shift is required, and this text argues that such a shift needs to be in the direction of love. Love, however, means many things to many people, and is a term with different connotations depending on context. It is important, then, to contemplate what love means for the purposes of the discussion which follows. Further, other key terms such as ‘pedagogy’ and ‘learning’ also require some examination, as the definition of these might not be as clear and evident as one might imagine at first glance. DEFINING TERMS

Love Definitions and ideas about the development of love come from a variety of perspectives, including biological, evolutionary, neuroanatomical, interactional, broadly spiritual, and even mathematical and chemical to name but a few. According to Berscheid (2006) …the word love is used in an astounding array of situations to describe an enormous range of attitudes, emotions, feelings, and behaviours toward objects and people. In this respect, love is not different from many other words, for all human language is characterised by polysemy. (p. 172) For the purposes of a discussion on pedagogy, however, it is necessary to narrow the list of possible interpretations down to manageable number. This narrowing down is subjective, but nonetheless necessary to move the discussion forward. Three broad areas, then, have been chosen which seem to be most germane to a discussion on pedagogy. These include psychological, religious, and philosophical frameworks. Psychological frameworks. Probably the most well known theorist in psychology to address the topic of love is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s long-term interest and work on love (and hate) is less cited that his work on intelligence, but nevertheless has much to offer. While exhorting us not to lose the whole of love through partitioning some aspects of it, Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love represents love as having three main constituent elements, namely; intimacy, passion, and decision/ commitment. Sternberg’s work on love has been most frequently employed in the discussion of romantic love, however, each element can be readily applied to the sort of love required between teacher and student. Intimacy, as understood by Sternberg, “…refers to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships. It thus includes within its purview those feelings that give rise, essentially, to the experience of warmth in a loving relationship” (p. 119). This view of intimacy is germane to an effective pedagogical relationship. Such intimacy and bondedness, as will be discussed later in this text, allows for ease of communication and feelings of psychological comfort and security that enhance learning. When Sternberg talks of passion he is mainly referring to physical attraction, sexual consummation, and romance, none of which are appropriate in the sorts of pedagogical relationships discussed in this text. 2

INTRODUCTION

However, Cho (2005) represents passion as a motivational force in the quest for learning. This is largely in agreement with Sternberg, who also acknowledges the strong motivational aspect of passion. To be passionate in a pedagogical sense may, then, more akin to exuberance. Finally, following intimacy and passion, Sternberg’s third component of decision/commitment involves deciding that one loves another, and committing to maintaining that loving relationship in the longer term. In a pedagogical sense this evokes feelings of intentionality. A teacher and learner take a decision to enter into a pedagogical relationship in which love is a fundamental ingredient, and then demonstrate loyalty to one another and the process by pursuing common learning goals together. One important aspect of love in Sternberg’s view is for the two individuals in the relationship to be matched in terms of how their triangles of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment align. An ideal relationship is one in which these three areas align perfectly in terms of the amount of each of these components both individuals hold, with equal amounts of each component being desirable for a balanced relationship. Sternberg (2006) later added to his work on a triangular theory of love when he examined how love develops, viewing it as a story in which we are more likely to love those whose love story closely matches our own. Further work by Beall and Sternberg (1995) examined the social constructedness of love, and argued that love resists absolute definition because it differs according to time, place, and culture. Under this argument the idea of what love is shifts in nature and function according to the society or sub-culture in which it occurs. This is an interesting addition to the earlier work of Sternberg, an addition which might lead one to the conclusion that love is an interaction between the individual experiences of two people in a loving relationship, and the influence of culture that helps to shape and delineate the directions that love will take. Some cultures might be more passionate, for example, leading to an emphasis on this particular aspect. Others might emphasise different types of decisions and commitments. These emphases come to bear on the love experiences of individuals. Three positions with respect to love and psychological aspects of it are described by Cho (2005) in his exploration of the ethical boundaries and usefulness of love as pedagogy. These include the erotic position, the caring position, and the technical position. The erotic position employs passion, intrigue, and sexual tension (not sexual relations) in which this tension is transferred to a desire for knowledge, as pedagogical instruments; the caring position emphasises relationship and connection, and; the technical position involves employing a caring relationship in a mechanistic way to motivate students, rather than to embark on a journey of mutual knowledge seeking. Ultimately, Cho dismisses each of these positions as inadequate in and of themselves, and advocates for a view in which love assists two people to ‘become one’ and engage in a common pursuit of knowledge. A pedagogy of love in these terms represents the filling of a void that exists between two people so as to allow them to seek knowledge about the world together. Another important psychological conceptualisation of love comes from the work of Fehr and Russell (1991) who, through research, theorised 20 prototypes of love. These prototypes were presented as categorisations of love that individuals demonstrating traits found in each category, or prototype, could be grouped under. As examples, 3

CHAPTER 1

some of the categories included maternal love, friendship, sibling love, Platonic love, patriotic love, and so on. In identifying 20 different prototypes of love Fehr and Russell highlighted the complexity of love, and to complicate matters further demonstrated that the boundaries between each prototype are ‘fuzzy’, with the prototypes resisting clear delineation. This has likely frustrated those looking for clear, concise definitions of love, but in all probability points to a fact we must for the time being accept when discussing love; it resists absolute definition and categorisation. Berscheid (2006) presents a tidier view of love, constructing a taxonomy of loves, with four categories. These include attachment love which is the love generally felt between parent and child. A child attaches itself to an older, wiser, and bigger person in order to be protected from actual or possible dangers. Compassionate love refers to the altruistic trait of being concerned about and taking action to promote the welfare of another. Companionate love/liking refers to the sort of love involved in friendship. One feels attracted to the companionship of another because the traits of that individual provide one with certain personal rewards, such as intellectual engagement, for example. The meaning of romantic love is probably self evident, referring to the sort of love felt by those engaged in a romantic relationship, including feelings of passion, addiction, and eroticism. Of the four taxonomies of love, the first three have obvious links to possible pedagogical application, while the idea of romantic love does not fit in with the scope and intent of the sort of pedagogy addressed in this text. Perhaps asking the question ‘what is love?’ of psychology is the wrong question. Perhaps, in the manner of Beall and Sternberg (1995), it might be more productive to examine our individual conceptualisations and experiences of love in the time, place, and cultural contexts in which they occur. In the area of psychology the need for such an examination would appear to be acute. It is an odd paradox that love, arguably the most widespread phenomenon on the planet, remains one of the least understood areas in the fields of psychology and pedagogy. Religious frameworks. This book is not necessarily intended to be religious in nature, however, many of the conceptualisations of love found in religious discourse have resonance and relevance to the topic of love as pedagogy. In stark contrast to psychology, religious thought has behind it centuries of history of contemplating the meaning of love, and how love is evident and enacted in daily life. It is, therefore, a rich source of ideas about love that should not be ignored, whatever one’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof ) might be. The psychological frameworks discussed above view love as being created between the psychological processes of two people on which the influence of context comes to bear. This framework, then, is largely individualistic in nature. Religious traditions of thought tend to come at love from a different perspective. Christianity is one example of this, and will be used here as a brief illustrative example of a religious viewpoint on love. This is not to dismiss or devalue evidence of love in other religions, but rather to provide a specific description of one conceptualisation of love found in religion. The Christian religious tradition represents love as emanating from God, and demonstrated in most concrete terms by the death of Christ through the crucifixion, which is seen by Christians as a sacrifice given in love in order to free mankind 4

INTRODUCTION

from sin. To Christians, Gods love is self-sacrificing. Followers emulate the love of God by returning love to him through faith and acts of devotion, and through loving one another demonstrably through acts of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, generosity, and so on. Clough (2006), in his consideration of Christian love from a psychological and theological viewpoint, notes that love, coming from God, exists independently of the individual and is revealed upon coming to Christ rather than created. Love, according to Clough, is impossible to define precisely in the way attempted by psychologists because the Judeo-Christian biblical use of terms is one that uses words to expand meanings and encourage wider thought, rather than to reduce them to precise quantifiable delineations in the way psychology does. Nevertheless, Clough notes that Christian love is a unifying experience, one in which actual or potential sacrifice for another is evident. It is unselfish, and as it comes from God is directed at not only those we have immediate relationships with, but to society as a whole. This fits well with the notion of love as pedagogy, in that love is extended to all collaborators in the learning process, and the aim is a unified search for knowledge between the learner (or learners) and the teacher (or teachers). Further, the Christian tradition demands that followers love their fellow humans as they love themselves. Sanctification, becoming more Christ-like, is a natural consequence of understanding God’s love. In the Lutheran view especially, receiving Gods love is not contingent on producing good works. God places no such prerequisites on the attainment of his love. A similar view might be taken by one using love as pedagogy; the teacher gives love with no strings attached in the hope that students benefit. According to Clough, Christian love is …the deep energy that motivates us to seek spiritual direction, therapy, counseling, mentoring, education, advice, sermons, worship, and community. It lives in our affection for our children; our debt to our parents; our concern for one another; and our responsibility to the earth, to other species, and to God. Love challenges and convicts us. It is the living reality that drives and can ground “discourse” and “meaning-making” in existential psychotherapy and post-modernist psychology. (p. 30). The above discussion of Christian love has parallels with understandings of love from the world’s other major faiths (a point made repeatedly by the Dalai Lama), which of course cannot all be discussed here. For example, like the Christian faith, brotherhood and unity under God are emphasized in the Jewish and Muslim traditions (Migliore, 2008). Faith traditions elevate love to a sublime state, one that is closely associated with God, and is even seen as the personality of God. That which occurs in the absence of love is debased and probably unimportant. It follows that from a faith perspective, then, love is an essential ingredient in the relationship between teacher and learner if what is to be learned is in any way worthwhile. A religious definition of love, therefore, is one that supports the unity of teacher and learner in a selfless, virtuous discovery of God’s truths. Philosophical frameworks. While the various religious views on love tend to share some broad commonalities, and the field of psychology presents still-developing 5

CHAPTER 1

views of love broadly bound in human relationships that may be shaped by society, in no sense could philosophical views about love be considered to be in agreement with one another. Hamilton (2006) has recognised what he calls a “…persistent and possibly intractable disagreement about love” (p. 239) in the field of philosophy. To Hamilton this is more than simply recognising that love is difficult to define, but rather it is an acknowledgement that there are deep philosophical disagreements about love that in part at least contribute to confusion when trying to reconcile the various viewpoints. Given this, and following the pattern already adopted in the preceding sections on psychological and religious frames of love, a few philosophical viewpoints are presented below which seem to have pertinence to the topic of love as pedagogy. There is no claim that this presentation is exhaustive, but rather might be viewed as illustrative of some views that are helpful for pedagogical purposes. Early philosophical conceptualisations of love clearly demonstrate how ideas about love have evolved over the centuries. In Plato’s (trans. 1956) Symposium, love is represented as a searching for beauty. This search for beauty, however, takes on an other-worldly sense. Plato’s (trans. 1992) view, as famously represented in his simile of the prisoners in the cave in Book Seven of Republic, is that our experience is a mere reflection of the true essence of things as they really are in their perfect state, and which we are generally unable to access. We can, however, come closer to seeing the true nature of things through contemplation and philosophical thought and reasoning. In Plato’s view, love is the deep intellectual contemplation of beauty that brings one closer to seeing the ‘reality’ of beauty. Plato’s ideas provide us with an important initial frame through which to develop philosophical notions of love. In using Plato’s approach of contemplation, reasoning, and critique through questioning (Socratic dialogue) it is possible to develop robust, logical ideas about love and what it means. In Plato’s view engaging in love is cerebral (spawning the term ‘Platonic love’) and involves a striving for the ‘truth’ (knowledge) of beauty through intellectual processes. Despite postmodern distaste for the idea of the existence of an objective truth, Plato still has relevance. Even if one believes in the existence of multiple truths or possibilities, Plato’s ideas of finding these through reflection can still resonate. In a pedagogical sense Plato’s ideas could be viewed as an intellectual striving to discover the nature of beauty and other forms of knowledge. In his broad and useful overview of the philosophy of love, Moseley (2006) draws on mainly classical theories to describe the nature of love. He begins with first basing his discussion on Platonic and Aristotelian models, describing love in terms of eros, philia, and agape. The term eros has come to have a strong sexual association, however, it was used by Plato to suggest an intense and passionate desire for something. Pedagogically speaking, this would translate into a desire for knowledge of beauty (and also, if extended, knowledge of other things). The term philia might best be imagined as ‘brotherhood/sisterhood’ and involves an appreciation and fondness for others, expressed in friendships, and a desire to participate in and be loyal to social groupings including families, and political and other forms of societal structures. Agape extends the elements of eros and philia even further. In it’s purest form this refers to God’s love for man, which is reciprocated and includes a love for all of humanity in a broad sense, rather than simply a love for one’s friends and immediate 6

INTRODUCTION

community as is involved in philia. However, agape is not without it’s difficulties. For example, should we love those who behave in ways that are abhorrent and damaging to individuals and societies? This debate has come down through the centuries and has formed the basis of much social, philosophical, and religious discussion. More recent discussions on love and philosophy as they relate to pedagogy have centered around Paulo Friere’s (1970) landmark work Pedagogy of the Oppressed which has provided us with some interesting insights. Friere viewed the dichotomous teacher-student relationship as an oppressive contradiction, and advocated for a unified search for meaning in which both teacher and student engage in a process where the benefits are mutual. The roles of student and teacher blend so that each party is simultaneously a student and a teacher. This unified student-teacher and teacher-student unit explore the world through critical thinking which leads to them becoming more ‘human’ and defies oppression. The link between Friere’s work and love as pedagogy has been increasingly recognised prior to, but more fully subsequent to, his death in the late 90s. Darder (2002) provides a cogent demonstration of the links between Friere’s work and love as pedagogy, highlighting the loving aspects of two individuals embarking on a search for meaning together, and in doing so freeing each other from oppression. Darder saw in Friere’s work that teaching can be an act of love, a conclusion echoed by Carla Rinaldi (2006) and seen in practice in the pre schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, and in select locations around the world. Friere’s philosophy of striving for humanness by shaking off oppression through unity and criticism, then, offers much to the discussion of love as pedagogy. Learning and Pedagogy To some, what learning is may seem self-evident. Most commonly people equate learning with acquisition; perhaps the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, processes, and skills. This is certainly an adequate view of learning for many contexts, but any discussion of love as pedagogy demands more from learning. What sort of learning is aspired to through using love as pedagogy? The work of behaviourists such as Thorndike, Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, and all who have followed has shown us that one can learn through the administration of a series of rewards and punishments through association and reinforcement. A dog that associates the ringing of a bell with food will salivate at the ringing of that bell. A boy who has been appropriately behaviourally reinforced to clean his room when asked will do so. But what is the nature of this learning? Behavioural learning is rudimentary learning that for the most part does not require significant amounts of intellectual engagement. One can automatically salivate or clean one’s room without thinking about it terribly much. Skinner (1977) even went so far as to claim that cognition is irrelevant because what really matters is observable and measurable performance, not what takes place inside the learner in a conscious cognitive sense. If one is interested in learning a series of mundane tasks and responding automatically as a result of a history of reinforcement, then behavioural techniques will work well. Indeed, behaviourism is a useful technique where such tasks need to 7

CHAPTER 1

be learned quickly and efficiently. However, if one wants to engage in truly meaningful learning of complex ideas, feelings, beliefs, and values, then a purely behavioural approach will prove inadequate. As one illustration of the limitations of behaviourism, take the idea of love itself. Is it possible to teach someone to love another, who they currently find abhorrent, through purely behavioural means? A series of reinforcers may well train a person to behave in ways that look like love (such as standing close to the person and uttering loving phrases), but will actual feelings of love be invoked in the subject? There are certain areas of learning that defy the application of a purely scientific approach like behaviourism. In most areas concerning the human condition such as emotions, spirituality, and even the mastery of complex tasks, learning through purely behavioural techniques will produce only superficial results. Using love as pedagogy is an antidote to superficial learning. While behaviourist techniques may certainly be applied as a small element of a wider pedagogical program based on love, they are not central to it. Behaviourism may underlie much of what we do, but the important pedagogical experiences are the ones we come to through love. Given this, learning can be looked at through two lenses. In one corner sits fundamental and mundane learning, which is more akin to training. In another corner sits learning with greater depth including appreciation, true competency, decision making, critical capacities, attitudes, feelings, judgements, and so on, which might be characterised as the products of true education. Love can be used to both train and educate, but pedagogical methods such as behaviourism, where applied in isolation and in the absence of love, are limited to the former. Consideration of the idea of learning often leads us to the ways in which learning is brought about through pedagogy. In some respects pedagogy has become so closely associated with the idea of education in general that the two terms are at times used synonymously. Hinchliffe (2001), however, draws a sharp contrast between the two, and in doing so sheds some light on what the term pedagogy means. According to Hinchliffe, education refers to learning broadly, involves learning for it’s own sake, and is more open-ended in nature. Pedagogy refers to learning directed at social goals and must produce measurable outcomes. Hinchliffe’s complex argument drawing on philosophical models presents the idea of pedagogy in a less than positive light, arguing that it directs learning to narrow ends and constricts true open-ended education. While Hinchliffe may have a point, in reality education in the 21st century demands pedagogy. Curricula, both national and local, are present in almost every education system in the world. Educators at all levels must direct learning at certain specifics, and even in cases where learning occurs informally at home it is generally directed towards some end. Open-ended education is a commendable idea, and might even be an ideal, but in the current educational milieu the possibility for engaging in such education rarely exists. Further, if opportunities for such open education were to exist, it is unclear what that might look like in the absence of pedagogy. While Hinchliffe represents true education as being the sort of open-ended learning he is in favour of, there are others who have different views. Education can also be viewed as a collection of varied learnings, and Kneller (1971) notes that in this sense education amounts to experiences that have a formative effect on mind, character, 8

INTRODUCTION

or physical ability. He also notes, however, that education has a technical sense which is the societal process, institutional in nature, of transmitting knowledge, values, and skills from generation to generation. If viewed in this way, then education and pedagogy are different yet compatible, with the pedagogy used to achieve various ends contributing to education in a broader sense. Education is the end, and pedagogy is the means to that end, and perhaps also, where love is involved, an end in itself. The pedagogy criticised by Hinchliffe is largely derived from the western tradition, and it should be noted that not all cultures are as utilitarian in their approach to pedagogy. The traditional pedagogy of some aboriginal societies, for example, differs significantly from western pedagogical techniques, often resulting in tensions where aboriginal students are educated in environments founded on the western tradition. For example, in some North American Aboriginal cultures there is a general preference for less verbal forms of instruction with an inclination to rely on visual and spatial information, along with a tendency to prefer watching and doing as opposed to experimentation through trial and error. To some extent the learner takes on a more passive role, wanting to be shown how to do something rather than discovering it on his or her own (Danyluk & da Costa, 1999). One is not expected to know everything, and it is perfectly acceptable to seek help from peers or others as required. Interdependence is encouraged, in contrast to the independence so often encouraged in the western tradition. In this tradition, pedagogy and education (in the sense used by Hincliffe) are intertwined; the methods used to teach, such as reliance on others, is also part of what is to be learned (Collins, 2005). These methods, while different, are not open-ended and are aimed at the end goal of producing useful and functional members of the broader society. Pedagogy, then, is the employment of methods of teaching and learning that are directed towards an end goal as part of a broader education. When one speaks of love as pedagogy, one is referring to the use of love in teaching and learning to attain mutually desirable ends. Activity is purposeful, and takes place against the backdrop of love. Additional Terminology At this juncture it is necessary to briefly discuss three more terms that are used throughout this text. The purpose of this text is to discuss how love as pedagogy can transform the education of children, and while there are doubtless many contexts that serve educational needs, the focus of this book is on schools. This is because it is these institutions that are formally charged with the task of educating, and further it is these contexts in which the majority of learners receive their basic formal education. The majority of readers also have experience in schools, either as students or teachers, and so bring this background, with all its similarities and differences, to reading. Focusing on schools should not be interpreted as defending them, or the practices that take place in them, but rather as recognition that schools are, in a practical sense, key education providers. Given this, terms commonly used in schools such as ‘classroom’, ‘teacher’, and ‘student’ are used throughout the text. While the aim of this book is to promote the idea of a unified journey of knowledge 9

CHAPTER 1

seeking based in love, it is recognised that individuals comprise this unity. The word ‘teacher’, then, generally denotes an adult education professional, and the term ‘student’ generally denotes a child or adolescent education participant. ETHICAL, MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CAUTIONS

The fact that love and it’s links to pedagogy are uncomfortable topics for some might have a basis in many of the by now well-known stories of sexually predatory educators taking advantage of students. Cho (2005), in his examination of love as pedagogy in relation to sexual scandals, notes that the line between love and sex can be ill defined and vague, and using an example of documented teacher-student sex describes the boundary as porous. It is important to state unequivocally that not only is there no place for sexual relationships between teachers and students in educational contexts, but also that pursuit of such relationships in these circumstances is a betrayal of love and should be rigorously condemned. The educational contexts considered in this text are institutional in nature (schools) and are characterised by differentials in age and power; distorted ideas of love should not be used as leverage by those wielding power who wish to take advantage of their students. One of the foundational premises of this text is that love can be entirely non-sexual in nature, and that indeed it is this non-sexual love that is pedagogically beneficial and recommended. Based on the ethical argument outlined above, most institutionalised education contexts have clear rules of professional conduct relating to sexual relationships between teachers and students, with sanctions for such transgressions ranging up to and including criminal charges. While necessary to protect those with less power in a relationship, such codes of conduct can also be problematic and create tensions for those wishing to pursue love as pedagogy. A salient example of this comes from the Cambridgeshire City Council (2002) in the UK. The ‘Code of Conduct for Teachers and Employees Working with Young People’ seems to be less a policy on professional conduct and more a tool for avoiding the occurrence and allegations of sexual and physical abuse of students. While protection from such abuse is obviously essential, practices that to many might ordinarily seem very normal in relationships between two people, especially those in a caring teaching and learning relationship, are prohibited. For example, staff may not touch students unless it is unavoidable, in order to comfort them, avoid violence, or apply First Aid. Under these circumstances touch, such an important feature of many caring human relationships, is heavily restricted. To be fair, such rules are usually not generated out of thin air and are often responses to actual events and/or growing community concern about inappropriate interactions between children and adults. However, in providing such stringent rules, a culture might be created whereby the natural ebb and flow of human interaction is stifled and every instance of touch is regarded with suspicion. Teacher and learner may learn to regard one another with fear, and interactions may become more clinical and less familiar. Jones (2004) refers to ‘child panic’, where cultures are created wherein teachers feel discomfort at what were previously normal forms of intimacy between children and adults, such as occasional hugs with youngsters. 10

INTRODUCTION

Under such circumstances teachers discipline student’s affection and defer to the societal anxiety that all affection is inappropriate, and that to behave in an appropriate way is to be remote with students. Such tensions are difficult to resolve. On one hand students must be protected, but on the other hand warm, caring, and natural relationships that are free of distrust need to be fostered if effective learning is to ensue. The question needs to be asked: Do restrictive policies regarding adult-child interactions protect children? Evidence in this regard is difficult to come by, and studies on the prevalence of child abuse are complicated by problems of accurate measurement (Goldman & Padayachi, 2000). Those with a predilection for abuse might simply ignore such policies given that they are aware that their behaviour is breaking the law anyway, with such laws being a seemingly insufficient deterrent. The solution to this problem might lie in a combination of educating students to recognise, report, and engage in behaviours that help prevent abuse, along with the fostering of caring cultures of mutual staff surveillance and supervision in contextually relevant ways. To take up the touching example once again, students who are taught to recognize the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching might be better equipped to participate in an appropriately familiar relationship with a teacher than if a blanket policy of ‘no touch’ (which can be ignored by abusers anyway) were applied. Such prevention programs have been found to be to some degree effective for protection in institutional contexts, especially where combined with other approaches (Baron & Topping, 2008). Mutual, contextually relevant staff supervision is more problematic but might represent a balance between the need to protect students and the need for studentteacher familiarity. The key words here are ‘contextually relevant’. Jones (2004) remarks that with experience educators know how to recognise the difference between appropriate and inappropriate student-teacher interactions, but that what they view as inappropriate is governed by the general anxiety about touching children found in society. In a practical sense, however, little can be done about this anxiety, and perhaps it is worth considering an increased emphasis on mutual staff monitoring which is responsive according to the context. For example, a six-year-old student placing her hand on her teacher’s shoulder while she reads to him might provoke two responses. The teacher, experiencing ‘child panic’, might interrupt the learning situation and ask the student to remover her hand. Alternatively, the teacher might simply allow the hand to remain on his shoulder until the activity is complete, or the student naturally removes her hand. In this instance, few would suggest that the student placing her hand on the teacher’s shoulder is in any way problematic, yet a strictly enforced ‘no touch’ policy would forbid it, interrupting the learning process and forcing the teacher to subtly discipline the student for her natural demonstration of affection. An experienced and sensible staff member observing this event, however, would probably deem that given the context and age of the student such a small show of affection was perfectly natural and healthy. This sort of supervision may contribute to safety, with context and the expertise of the person doing the monitoring being taken into account. One would assume that where touch or other interactions are inappropriate to the context, concerns would be raised and addressed. 11

CHAPTER 1

This is, after all, how things operated prior to the development of the restrictive policies we now see, and there is little if any evidence to suggest that abuse has decreased as a result of ‘no touch’ policies. West (2000) reports no escalation in instances of paedophilia despite widespread general concern that this is the case. He argues that an “exaggerated perception of risk produces undue restrictions on children’s freedom and on their interactions with teachers and other adults” (p. 511). The key is ensuring that students remain safe, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and restricting the means to the very reason students attend school; to engage in effective learning which is most effective in the context of a loving relationship. Context, however, is everything. Replace the teacher and the six-year-old with a university professor and a 20-year–old student, and suddenly the innocent hand on the shoulder becomes much more sinister, and would likely be viewed as such. Unfortunately for those who like simple solutions, blanket policies that restrict teacher-student interactions likely do not stop those with evil intent, and result in a more problematic learning environment for those well-meaning people wishing to use love as pedagogy. Such policies make us feel good because they are concrete and seemingly comprehensive, however, humans and the relationships they develop are more complicated than that, and are always context dependent. Equipping students with the tools to recognise and act on what is inappropriate in a relationship might solve part of the problem, and a professional community monitoring what is reasonable in any given situation might solve another part. Protecting one another is the highest priority, and although context dependent responses do little to satisfy our need for tidiness, they may well be the best that we can do. LOVE OPERATIONALISED: A WAY FORWARD

To this point the nature and conceptualisations of love as it applies to pedagogy have been discussed and considered, along with some discussion around the moral and ethical use of love in teaching and learning. While love is an inexhaustible subject, and one that resists confinement and rigid descriptions, it is necessary to make meaning and come to some conclusions about love if the pragmatic goal of describing its use in a pedagogical sense is to be realised. According to Berscheid (2006) Because the word love is used in an almost infinite variety of contexts, it has an almost infinite variety of meanings. This fact is unfortunate from the point of view of those wishing to construct a simple definition of love and a set of algorithms representing its causes and consequences…To extract from the muddle of meanings of love a definition of what love really is, most scholars have grabbed their taxonomic broom and tried to tidy up the mess by sorting the myriad meanings of love into neat piles, each believed to reflect a variety of love. (p. 173) This somewhat describes what has been attempted here with reference to pedagogy. Using the above discussion as background, it is possible to theorise about some of the salient elements of love that might be useful in pedagogy without laying 12

INTRODUCTION

claim to having constructed any sort of definitive or absolute definition of love (see Figure 1.1). The salient elements of love held in common by the three perspectives of psychology, philosophy, and religion shown in Figure 1.1 are without question broad and do not fully encapsulate the perspectives on love held within each of these areas. However, they do comprise an operational and pragmatic basis from which to move forward. These salient elements, based on religious, psychological, and philosophical ideas about love, are as follows: – Love involves kindness and empathy. Kindness and empathy are derived from the unity and the valuing of brotherhood/sisterhood found in various religious traditions. This resonates with the philosophical notion of philia expressed in the Platonic tradition, and with the sort of teacher-student relationship suggested in the work of Friere. Further, kindness and empathy are central to many of the psychological prototypes of love offered by Fehr and Russell (1995) and also the idea of compassionate love identified by Berscheid (2006).

Figure 1.1. Relationships between perspectives on love for pedagogy.

– Love involves intimacy and bonding, producing loyalty. Sternberg’s (1986) triarchic theory of love emphasises intimacy as being one of the axes, and in order to achieve this intimacy bonding must occur. Further, the idea of loyalty is represented in another axis of decision/commitment. Berscheid’s (2006) attachment love also has strong links to intimacy and bonding. Religious frames of love emphasise unity and brotherhood/sisterhood, which is achieved through intimate relationships with and commitment (loyalty) to God and each other. Loyalty is 13

CHAPTER 1

also a strong element of both philia and agape in Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical understandings of love, and is reflected in the need for teacher-student unity in the work of Friere. – Love involves sacrifice and forgiveness. Notions of love involving sacrifice and forgiveness are evident in religious discourse. Christianity provides a clear example of this as Christians see the traits of sacrifice and forgiveness as being central to the work of Christ and the Christian tradition. Other religions such as Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam share these values, although perhaps for different reasons such as relieving the suffering of others or obeying God (Carrithers, 1996; Yahya, 2006). It is also evident in philosophy in the compromises made in order to ensure harmonious, unified learning relationships (philia; see Moseley, 2006). Further, the benefits of forgiveness are well documented in the psychological literature viewing it as a way to overcome psychological and social difficulties, and in some cases even to reconcile with and come closer to an offender or victim in terms of understanding (Impett & Gordon, 2008). – Love involves acceptance and community. Beall and Sternberg’s (1995) psychological view emphasises the social constructedness of love, and therefore acknowledges the value of society and community in shaping the way in which we view love. Further, intimacy and passion involve an acceptance of others. Religious frames see sanctification as providing unity with others and a seeking of God (Clough, 2006). Christian thought particularly emphasises unity and acceptance, with emphasis being given to Christ’s interactions with and compassion for those from all walks of life including the poor, sick, and indigent. Friere views a community of teachers and learners seeking mutual understandings as being one means of freeing people from oppression, and the Platonic/Aristotelian notions of philia and agape link love strongly to the notion of community. – Passion infuses all aspects of love. Passion is acknowledged in nearly all realms of thought on love. Sternberg (1986) cites it as an axis in his triarchic theory of love, and this is further supported by Cho (1995). Berscheid’s (2006) ideas about compassionate love have pertinence here. Plato’s idea of eros evokes a sense of passion for learning. Passion does not stand alone, rather it is evident in the degree to which the other elements of loving pedagogy identified above are enthusiastically pursued. The remainder of this text will focus on each of these elements in turn before providing a concrete example of love as pedagogy in the form of a photographic case study. It will conclude with an overall theoretical framework of love as pedagogy and some suggestions as to how this way of working might be advanced through a program of teacher reflection and self-development.

14

CHAPTER 2

KINDNESS AND EMPATHY IN PEDAGOGY

THE CASE FOR KINDNESS AND EMPATHY

What are kindness and empathy, and why are they important to pedagogy? The traits of kindness and empathy are certainly desirable in one’s personality, but what bearing do they bring to the teaching and learning context? As discussed in Chapter One, notions of kindness and empathy as elements of love have roots in psychological, religious, and philosophical traditions of thought, although the two notions have different histories when it comes to pedagogy. As approaches to pedagogy began to be studied in more modern scholarly ways through research, kindness was recognised as being foundational to good teaching and learning (see Willard, 1929). In contrast, empathy has a much more recent history. Arnold (2006) points out that the idea of empathy has its roots in 19th century aesthetic philosophy, but that it was not until the mid 1980s that its links to pedagogy began to be seriously discussed. In that short time empathy has come to be seen by many as being of critical importance to meaningful learning (Schertz, 2006a). Kindness and empathy, while retaining enough of a relationship to be discussed as part of the same chapter in this book (see also Batson, Ahmad, Lishner & Tsang, 2005, who elaborate further on the links between the two ideas), are also distinct concepts. It is perhaps useful at this point to separate the two ideas for individual attention, although before they can be discussed, they should be understood. Like most aspects of love, a precise definition of kindness is elusive and so it is probably best to come to know this idea through discussion. The philosophical roots of kindness can be traced at least as far back as Aristotle (trans. 1991) who in his Rhetoric describes it as a form of what we might now consider to be generosity, where one helps another in need in the absence of tangible personal rewards for doing this. The extent to which one is kind is dependent on a number of variables, including the level of need, the timing of the act, and so forth. The idea of kindness has been reconsidered since Aristotle, being for many centuries conceptualised as a religious virtue, with attention being devoted to it in most religious texts and doctrine. Kindness, however, is seemingly also an a-religious value, with atheist philosophers such as Nietzsche (trans. 1992), citing kindness as being a curative in the realm of human relationships. More recently, the current Dalai Lama (2006) has associated kindness with his religion in the strongest possible terms. The Dalai Lama asks his followers to pursue a ‘policy of kindness’ that he connects with notions of warmheartedness and helping others. The altruistic nature of kindness, then, is one that has been retained over thousands of years and still resonates today. It is more than pure altruism. It has attached to it a flavour of virtue and warmth towards fellow humans. 15

CHAPTER 2

Empathy has been described as “an ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of self and others. It is a sophisticated ability involving attunement, decentering and introspection: an act of thoughtful, heartfelt imagination” (Arnold, 2006, p. 7). The various elements of this definition are worthy of consideration. The notion of attunement is the focusing in on another. It has the sense of coming together, and perhaps a ‘meeting of the minds’. In decentering one puts oneself outside of the centre of one’s world and tries to look at situations from other angles. Introspection involves thinking about oneself in relation to others and individuals and collective circumstances. Finally, this all involves contemplation and imagining the life of another so as to understand and identify with them as closely as is possible. Empathy is different to sympathy in that the level of identification is greater – one feels in oneself the plights and joys of another as opposed to the more external connotations of sympathy where one feels sorrow or joy for another. Consistent with the above definition, Schertz (2006b) notes that empathy is …the mediation of emotional information between two body-consciousnesses that involves systemic communicative processes operating between subjects which are, by definition and structure, relational. In other words, empathy can be seen as a form of communication by which human beings interact in an intersubjective gestalt. (p. 8) An interesting aspect of empathy, and a continuing debate in the literature, relates to whether it is a cognitive or affective construct. Many have come to the conclusion that it is both. Empathy can be seen as cognitive in that there is likely a cognitive process that leads to the understanding of the psychology of others in terms of discerning their thoughts, feelings, intentions, and so on. It is affective in that it is based in feeling with another as opposed to merely engaging in the sorts of cognitive processes outlined above (Strayer, 1987). Ridley, Vaughn, and Wittman (1982) argued that the cognitive process comes first, as we ascertain and understand what another is feeling. The affective dimension follows when we identify with those feelings, considering and possibly acting on those feelings through our own emotions. Much of the literature on empathy focuses on its use as a tool for understanding diversity in areas such as disability, culture, and religion, and this has generally been the context in which empathy has been most recognizable in pedagogy. For example, Thompson (1995) presents a cogent argument for using empathy as a way of teaching university students to care about minority groups. This use of empathy is by no means limited to higher education contexts, and in fact is also widely used and recommended for school contexts involving younger students where the goal is to develop a concern for others (see for example Gordon & Green, 2008). The development of empathy for these purposes, however, might be seen as the transmission of content rather than the employment of a particular style of pedagogy. Indeed, the development of empathy is a formal curriculum goal in some parts of the world. There is another sense in which empathy is evident in many classrooms and where it receives less attention but is perhaps equally or even more important. Just as empathy is important for learners to develop in order to understand others they learn about and interact within peer groups and in the community, the development 16

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

of empathy between teacher and learner, and vice-versa, is at the heart of the contribution of empathy to the idea of love as pedagogy. When teacher and learner develop empathy with one another, a deeper understanding of the other is engendered making the mutual pursuit of knowledge in ways suggested by Friere (1970) possible. Empathic teachers understand their students to a greater degree, and are perhaps more sensitive and able to respond to strengths and needs in affective, academic, emotional, behavioural, and other areas. Similarly, empathetic students might be more adept at responding to a teacher, and in drawing out learning through more perceptive responses to learning situations. Kindness and empathy, then, are both essential ingredients to the loving pedagogical process. This information alone is nevertheless of limited value if both teachers and learners simply know about these ideas and do not internalize them and generalize them to their pedagogical lives and practices. In order to do this, it is first necessary to consider how these traits are evident in, and can be further developed in, oneself and in others. USING KINDNESS IN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE

Having discussed what kindness is, and the importance of kindness in adopting a pedagogy of love, it is now time to turn to the pragmatic questions of how one might use kindness in a teaching and learning situation, and what this might look like in practice. Using kindness in teaching, like other areas of love as pedagogy, does not simply amount to the employment of a variety of ready-made teaching strategies designed to provide a superficial appearance of love. Rather, it requires the engendering of an atmosphere where kind acts occur between people who sincerely care about one another. In order to produce this atmosphere, one must first contemplate kindness from a personal point of view, encourage it in others, then implement teaching and learning structures in which kindness is infused as a matter of course. Fostering Kindness in Oneself Most people tend to assume that they are almost always kind in their interactions with others, however, the falseness of this assumption is evident when we consider how frequently others treat us in ways that are inherently unkind. For example, someone might push into line at the supermarket, or not offer an elderly passenger a seat on the bus. While we might argue that these are the sorts of are acts that we would not engage in, clearly people do engage in them, even though those people presumably also tend to think of themselves as generally kind. If we accept this argument, then, we can see that in some cases there exists a gap between perceptions of ourselves as kind, and the reality of daily actions. Evidence for the veracity of this statement can be found in research. Kohlberg (1971, 1976) provided males of all ages with a series of moral dilemmas, then categorized their responses as to what is a morally right and wrong response given the circumstances. For some time it was assumed that these responses would equate to action. Later research supported the notion that in actuality there is a gap between what one says is a morally correct course, and the action that same person might take in a real-life situation 17

CHAPTER 2

(Krebs & Denton, 2005), with Haidt (2001) claiming that we tend to respond to moral situations based on intuition rather than reasoned moral judgements (see also Loreman, 2009). Kindness has an association with moral virtue, meaning that this idea of a gap between theoretical and actual responses likely exists, a contention supported in research on kindness and Kohlberg’s stages by Comunian (1998). It is easier to say that one should act in kind ways than to actually act in kind ways. It is easier to say that one should always give up a seat on the bus to an elderly passenger than to do so if the opportunity presents itself when one is exhausted from a hard day of work. Aristotle (trans. 1991) would argue that the harder it is for one to perform an act of kindness, the greater is the magnitude of kindness involved in that act. Fostering kindness in oneself, then, likely involves an examination of the gap between how kind one views oneself to be, the sorts of acts one generally engages in, and at what point one is unwilling to act in kind ways. Kolb and Boyatzis (1970) explored ways in which a person might bridge the gap between ideals on the one hand and actions on the other. They suggested that goal setting and self-directed change might be beneficial in these circumstances. Kolb and Boyatzis outlined features of the goal setting process that their research found to be contributors to the accomplishment of a goal. This process is outlined in Figure 2.1. It is important to note that Kolb and Boyatzis emphasise the desirability of collaborative

Figure 2.1. The self-directed goal-setting process as outlined by Kolb and Boyatzis (1970). 18

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

goal setting. So, while an individual still retains control of the process, others are brought in to collaborate in setting the goal, and possibly in providing support throughout the process. It might be hard to discern the distance between our views of kindness and our behaviour in practice without the assistance of a sensitive and close colleague to help us reflect on this. As an example of how this process might look in practice, let us examine a dilemma where a teacher believes it is important and kind to allow some children extra time to complete assignments, but yet on reflection sees that her behaviour does not match that ideal as she tends to have a negative attitude when marking this work, and assigns lower grades to those students who submit late work. In this instance the teacher has already developed an awareness of the problem. Further consideration might highlight that the reason for her marking in this way is that this was the practice when she was a student, and also that her influential colleagues tend to take a dim view of work not submitted on time. In collaboration with a colleague the teacher might set herself a goal of not assigning lower grades to late assignments, and will develop a contextually relevant action plan for achieving this goal, with clear measurable indicators of what constitutes success. Success expectation would likely be high given that the teacher set the goal and has elicited support from a colleague. Psychological safety might be achieved through self-rationalisation that this practice is indeed kind. Further, the sensitive collaborating colleague will be on hand to provide support. This may all be psychologically reassuring. Finally, a selfevaluation is conducted, possibly in collaboration with the colleague. This evaluation would relate to the previously established measurable indicators (perhaps a comparison of grades on late versus non-late assignments), and a decision would be made as to the success otherwise of the goal attainment. Using this method implies a deliberate and scientific approach to behaviour change, which of course can also be applied to other areas of using love as pedagogy. Some might feel that the use of scientific method in the pursuit of kindness might not be an appropriate fit. This assumes that science and the realm of kindness (and indeed love) are incompatible, which is not necessarily the case. To assume that science has no value in the pursuit of a loving pedagogy is as risky as closing one’s eyes to the contribution that religious, philosophical, or other traditions make to the topic. We do not yet know enough about love to begin dismissing certain traditions of thought, and it is likely that we can find benefit in a combination of approaches to promoting love as pedagogy. Teaching in a Context of Kindness A pedagogy of love can only occur in an environment in which kindness exists. The development of personal kindness is a pursuit everyone can follow given that we can always be more kind. Therefore, the process can be a continuous one, with self-monitoring of kind practices already enacted, and a searching for areas in which greater kindness can be developed. As we foster greater kindness in ourselves, we must also be mindful of encouraging kindness in others. In a typical classroom context this involves not only students, but also other adults in the room. 19

CHAPTER 2

Being kind does not necessarily imply that one is a pushover or a soft touch. While the cliché ‘one must be cruel to be kind’ might be a little extreme, being kind in pedagogical sense sometimes requires difficult decisions to be made, especially where adults are concerned. What might be done on the very rare occasions where present in the classroom are people for whom unkindness has somehow become a fundamental, persistent, and consistent aspect of their work? If we agree that that presence of unkindness in an educational context is unacceptable, two options for dealing with this circumstance present themselves. The first, and preferred, option is to assist the colleague to recognise that a problem exists (and we must first be sure that it truly does exist), then take action to remedy the situation. In an instance where one has authority over another, it can be made clear that a shift towards greater kindness is obligatory. In instances where no such authority exists, we must of course be more diplomatic in encouraging the colleague to recognise the need for change. In order for such a change to work, it is best done in a spirit of collegiality and mutual exchange. Support and encouragement must be provided every step of the way. A shift towards helping a colleague to attain greater kindness can be made by engaging in the same process described above (Kolb & Boyatzis, 1970). While in many cases change will not be instantaneous, working towards kindness goals may keep the topic at the forefront of consciousness in the working partnership on a daily basis, and will hopefully provide for longterm change. The second option amounts to a last resort. The colleague in question might disagree that they are unkind or that their unkindness is problematic, and might actively resist overtures of assistance for change in this area. In these rare circumstances, with such a fundamental disagreement in approach, one needs to question the suitability of that person working in a classroom using love as pedagogy. Other options for where and how that person works might need to be explored. For example, a classroom assistant might be assigned to other duties in the school. While this might sound overly harsh and akin to abandoning a person (and raising possible allegations of hypocrisy in a book about love), it must be remembered that ultimately the adults must take the lead in fostering an atmosphere of kindness in a classroom, and if they are not prepared to do that then their presence will be, in the final analysis, detrimental to teaching and learning through love and therefore a betrayal of students. A good rule of thumb is to help wherever possible, and to make difficult decisions such as removing a colleague from a context only when absolutely necessary. This, of course, assumes one has the authority to remove a colleague from a context and this may not be the case. In times such as this, where the option of last resort is required but authority is limited, administrators likely need to be brought in to broker a resolution. Fostering Kindness in Students Once the educators are taking the lead in teaching with an attitude of kindness, attention can then be turned to fostering this kindness in students. A number of strategies exist for doing this, however, the literature on this topic tends to focus 20

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

almost exclusively on developing kindness in younger children. This can be extended to all students regardless of age, and indeed many of the strategies suggested are directly applicable to students of all ages. This does not imply that we should ignore differences in the perception and use of kindness in students of different ages. Consistent with Piagetian developmental theory, Baldwin and Baldwin (1970) found that children’s ideas about kindness differ and become more complex and adultlike as they age and develop. If we accept this, we can expect a more sophisticated response to and adoption of kindness the older a student gets, placing a greater emphasis on more fundamental and concrete kind acts for younger students. There are two main perspectives worthy of consideration when contemplating how to promote kindness in students. The first perspective is an environmental perspective, and the second perspective is an individual-interactional perspective. The point of the discussion below is not to provide a comprehensive overview of each and every strategy one can employ in order to promote greater kindness, but rather to provide a summary of some of the areas in which kindness can be developed, and one or two examples of what this looks like. Approaching kindness from an environmental perspective involves the manipulation of an educational environment in ways that facilitate the development of kindness. There are many ways to do this and teachers, being generally a creative profession, are probably best placed to develop environmental modifications relevant to their individual contexts. There are, nevertheless, some general practices that might have currency across contexts. Classroom resources promoting kindness. The use of children’s literature as a means of fostering kindness in young students has been found to be a successful approach (Bailey, 2006). According to Zeece (2009) the use of literature “…that highlights and supports secure attachment and positive interactions between young children and their significant adults and highlights kindness serves to build foundations of trust whereby prosocial behaviours such as sharing, helping, comforting, and caring are acknowledged and valued” (p. 447). Literature, of course, is only one type of resource and contexts for younger students are typically characterised by the availability of a wide variety of literature that is not always evident in learning settings for older students. The point in favour of the availability of written instructional material that emphasises kindness is one that can be easily extended to everyone, regardless of age. Of course, other classroom materials emphasising kindness are equally important, and the literature idea discussed above is but one example. A classroom pet is another example of a concrete (indeed animated) resource for fostering kindness. A class hamster, for example, must be cared for, loved, and treated with respect and dignity (Jabs, 1995). Further examples include puppets and dress-ups that allow children to dress up and role-play acts of kindness. Teachers will need to review their classroom resources on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure that ideas about kindness are adequately represented in the materials used by students. Classroom arrangements to promote kindness. The physical arrangement of classrooms can do much to promote a caring context. For example, students can be 21

CHAPTER 2

grouped in ways that promote interactions with one another and staff. Desks in rows can inhibit communication, and a careful consideration of how students can be seated so as to communicate with one another in healthy and productive ways can be beneficial in the promotion of kindness. Schaps & Solomon (1990) note that activities completed in such groupings are helpful in developing kindness because they allow for extensive interaction amongst group members, collaboration towards group goals, division of labour, mutual helping, use of reason and explanation, and explicit consideration and discussion of values related to the group activity. Further, teachers who spend their time mingling amongst the students during instructional time are best placed to encourage kind interactions, and also to demonstrate their kindness to students as opportunities arise. These sorts of groupings, however, may not be ideal for all settings at all times. Individual work, which generally fills at least some portion of the average school day, has been found to be better suited to the more traditional model of desks in rows for the very reason that they do inhibit communication (Hastings & Chantrey Wood, 2002). One must be careful not to disrupt academic progress in the pursuit of kindness, but rather to work at the two goals in tandem. Classroom procedures promoting kindness. Teachers can implement a number of classroom procedures that place students in situations where they can develop kindness. One example is that of peer tutoring. Peer tutoring involves a peer with expertise in a certain area teaching a peer without that expertise. It has been found to be an excellent instructional method for concept attainment providing the peer tutor is well trained and supported, but in addition to that there are many self-esteem benefits for the tutor. As a result of the helping relationship the tutor feels valued (see Loreman, Deppeler & Harvey, 2010). This sort of classroom instructional procedure, where students help one another, is an ideal context for students to demonstrate kindness to one another in very concrete ways. A myriad of other classroom procedures exist that can foster kindness, including the sharing of instructional and other materials, assignments completed with others, helping in problem-solving contexts, and turn-taking to name but a few. Many of these procedures are already in place in many classrooms, or would take minimal adjustments to implement into existing routines. As mentioned above, another perspective on kindness in the classroom aside from the environmental one is an individual-interactional one. This amounts to encouraging kindness in individual students, and promoting kind acts occurring in the course of every day interactions between students. Although there is a dearth of research in this area, some excellent ways of achieving this have been outlined in the literature. The Child Development Project in the United States was an early attempt at adopting a deliberate approach to promoting kindness, consideration, concern for others, and other areas of prosocial development (Schaps & Solomon, 1990). Over 20 years later this remains a positive and tangible example of a coordinated approach. Some of the features of this project that still have relevance for classrooms today include a reliance on both collaboration and adult guidance. Students are expected to learn about kindness through the example and guidance of 22

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

the adults in the classroom. According to Schaps and Solomon, children learn cooperatively and “…because peer interaction is not always equal status, collaborative, and benevolent, the teachers act as values advocates, pointing out the importance and relevance of helpfulness, fairness, concern and respect for others, and responsibility” (p. 39). Another feature of this approach is what they call developmental discipline. Developmental discipline involves students taking an active role in classroom governance, including the devising of rules and helping one another to follow those rules. Regular classroom meetings are held in order to help promote ownership of the classroom functioning by the students. In doing so, it was noted that schools who participated in this project became caring communities, with similar traits and atmospheres as are found in supportive families. Other more specific means of promoting individual-interactional kindness have been outlined by Church (2000), Miller (2000), Bailey (2006), and Adams (2007). Some of these are suggestions for parents that can also be extended to suit other learning contexts in addition to the home context. These have been advanced with reference to younger students, but with some thoughtful modification can be applied to promoting a culture of kindness, and individual kindness, in students of any age. These strategies, which I have added to and elaborated on, can be sorted into three categories, which are; teacher led kindness activities, student led kindness activities, and community based kindness activities. Teacher led kindness activities. This refers to activities in which the teacher takes the lead role. A social constructivist approach to teaching does not preclude the teacher taking the lead in some circumstances, and indeed where kindness is concerned adults must be positive role models to students. As a few examples, teacher generated activities can include: – Making a kindness list. Led by the teacher, students generate a list of altruistic events they have noticed. This might be turned into a class bulletin board that can be updated regularly. – Using pictures or videos of kind actions to generate a class or individual discussion on what it is to be kind. – Noticing and pointing out instances where students exhibit kindness. – Enforcing rules related to treating others with respect and kindness, but doing so with fairness and compassion. Unkindness should not be tolerated. – Showing leadership by treating students with respect and warmth. Being kind and generous in dealings with and discussions about others. – Facilitating friendships. For some students friendships are difficult, but this is the space in which kindness can occur. Teachers can and should engineer situations where all students can make friends. – Maintaining high standards. Demonstrations of kindness such as helping others should be an explicit expectation. It should be noted that all classroom members are worthy of kindness in equal amounts. At different times, especially during times of personal difficulty, some students might benefit from extra kind attention from adults and peers, however, as a general rule, the aim is to teach in a context where kindness is received and given 23

CHAPTER 2

by all in equal measure. Favouritism should not enter into the conversation, and indeed, when one is kind to all, then it is probable that all feel to some degree favoured. Student led kindness activities. This refers to activities where students take the lead. Many of these are facilitated by the teacher in the first instance, but ownership of the activity is quickly taken up by the students. As a few examples, these can include: – Cooperative group work activities where students must reach a common goal by helping each other and each performing a role. – Self-monitoring of kind acts conducted by themselves, and noticing the kindness of others in concrete ways (perhaps a system of ‘thank you’ notes could be implemented in a classroom to facilitate this). – Generation and monitoring of classroom rules through class meetings where fairness and compassion are emphasised. – Using manners. This produces a basis for respectful interactions from which kindness can develop. – Following a policy where the hand of friendship is extended to those seen alone in the playground through invitations to participate in group activities. Community based kindness activities. The purpose of activities in the community is to help students see that kindness extends beyond their immediate world and into the wider community. As a few examples, activities can include: – Fundraising for altruistic causes such as the local food bank, child sponsorship in a developing country, or resources for an underprivileged school. – Participate in activities at a local senior centre. – Volunteer to help as a class with some appropriate community service project. USING EMPATHY IN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE

Empathy and kindness are linked in that acts of kindness often bring us closer to one another, and this closeness assists in the process of mutual understanding leading to empathy. Further, the development of empathy might well be a catalyst for the development of kindness. When we understand and identify with another, we are more likely to want to help them (Batson et al., 2005). As with kindness, the best place to start with empathy is to pursue a path of self-development in the area. When we can empathise with others, it might well be easier for us to connect with them in order to make this empathy mutual. It is important to remember at this point that empathy that amounts to simply understanding why another person might act or feel a certain way is relatively superficial. Instead, what we should aim for is the capacity to indentify with others in heightened way, to see things from their perspective as much as is possible, and experience feelings and motivations with them in order to make pedagogical adjustments and improvements. One, however, must be careful. To become too immersed in the problems and emotions of another can cloud judgement and might ultimately, be unhelpful (Arnold, 2005). Empathy, then, is probably at its best when we are able to identify closely with another, yet maintain a strong sense of our own self and a measure of objectivity, a process labelled as 24

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

intelligent caring. In this way, we can respond to the needs and strengths of another and they can respond in kind in order to support a process of mutual learning. Fostering Empathy in Oneself and Others Whereas kindness can be fostered through a deliberate process of identifying and addressing gaps between an ideal situation and a current reality, empathy is perhaps better developed through immersion in empathic contexts in combination with a raised consciousness as to the value of listening and the impact this can have on our understanding of, and engagement with, others. While the previous section on kindness addressed developing this trait in oneself and in other adults separately, this section addresses the development of empathy on oneself and others as an activity to be done together. Empathy, the understanding and appreciation of others, is best developed with others. Individualism limits our capacity for empathy, as while we think we might truly know and understand the thoughts and feelings of another, the extent to which this is accurate and possible is questionable. Despite its limitations, as in all aspects of love as pedagogy, empathy is worth pursuing even if utopian states of empathy are impossible to achieve. Arnold (2005) describes what she calls ‘empathic intelligence’ in the following way Empathic intelligence is a sustained system of psychic, cognitive, affective, social and ethical functioning derived from: – an ability to differentiate self-states from others’ states (“who owns what”) – an ability to engage in reflective and analogic processing to understand and mobilise a dynamic between thinking and feeling in self and others (self narrative) – an ability to be enthusiastic, engaging, actively empathic, intelligently caring and professionally expert – a commitment to the well-being and development of self and others. (p. 7) The first two points of this definition are less self-evident than the last two points and are probably worthy of some elaboration. In differentiating self-states from other’s states one is not losing oneself in another, but rather is aware that despite the unity that comes with advanced states of empathy two people are, in the end, different entities. This is important in preserving the mutuality of an empathic relationship. You become one in as much as you try and share thoughts and feelings with another, yet on another level preserve a sense of individuality and objectivity. One simultaneously bonds with another, while also preserving the self. The second point about engaging in reflective and analogic processing in order to understand the dynamic between thought and feeling in self and others is based in Arnold’s idea that an interaction between thinking and feeling is essential for learning to occur. In her view “logic alone will not explain the most complex phenomena of life or the concept of empathic intelligence; rationality and emotion have to cooperate in that endeavour” (p. 7). Reflecting on how emotions influence rational thought in the self and others, then, is an important element of empathic intelligence. Everding and Huffaker (1998), taking a cognitive perspective on empathy, provide some concrete strategies for promoting its development in adults that are worthy of 25

CHAPTER 2

some consideration. It is increasingly evident in the literature that the development of empathy might be mapped and described in terms of stage development in ways similar to how cognitive development has been by theorists such as Jean Piaget and Robbie Case (Commons & Wolfsont, 2001; Moore, 1990). While there is as yet no specific agreement on how these stages of empathy present, there is relatively broad agreement that they do exist. Given the nature of developmental psychology most of the emphasis in the literature is on child development, however, according to Everding and Huffaker, there are four adult perspectives on empathy that have connections to a developmental view. In perspective A, one can have empathy for others not too different from oneself, along with sympathy for those seen as deserving it. Stereotyping of such groups is common. In perspective B, stereotypical views of different groups continue, but a greater range of diversity is accepted with the underlying philosophy of everyone being permitted to do their ‘own thing’ as long as it is not imposed on others being evident. In perspective C others are seen as operating in the context of a wider social system, although values in social systems that differ from that of the observer might be hard to understand. Maintaining the existing social system is a high priority in this perspective. In perspective D greater attention is devoted to the individual who is seen as operating in a social system that should value diversity in complex worldviews. Those taking perspective D try to understand others in ways that are complex and which evolve and change through time. It is important to note that while these perspectives arise out of an investigation of a cognitive developmental model of empathy, they are in and of themselves presented as simply differing perspectives that are not necessarily more or less developmentally advanced than others, although it may be argued that, in fact, a developmental hierarchy does exist. The process of moving towards greater empathy suggested by Everding and Huffaker is one of transformation involving a broadening, expanding, and enriching of understandings about the self and others, including the communities in which they are embedded. They suggest that one should learn to take on each of the different perspectives in order to better understand views of others. The suggest the following four strategies for the development of empathy in adults: – Play. The idea of play is defined broadly to include engagement in role-play scenarios where empathy can be developed; problem-solving simulations; cooperative activities, games, and tasks; and so forth. Through play we can imagine how others feel in low-stakes scenarios where we can feel comfortable to take on what normally might be seen as radically different perspectives. – Listening. Two types of listening are suggested. The first is a compassionate, active listening to others in all its many forms, including aurally and in writing and reading. The second type of listening is listening to oneself in order to uncover our own biases, misunderstandings, and subtle variations in conceptualizations of ideas as they differ from that of others. This can be done through an examination of our own personal writing and other forms of reflection. – Offering options. Recognizing the helpfulness of being exposed to multiple perspectives on the same problem or topic, it is suggested that discussion of case studies where multiple perspectives are used as resolving factors can be used as 26

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

a means of empathy development. Perhaps of greater impact in this area, however, is the broadening of experience to take in a wider variety of religious, cultural, or intergenerational activities than one has engaged in previously. This broadening of experience can challenge views and open up greater levels of understanding of the context in which others operate. – Shifting paradigms. This involves a conscious and deliberate effort to shift thinking in order to accept the point of view of another. For example, someone with pre-conceived ideas against homosexuality might try to consciously shift their views to being in favour of same-sex marriage. This is extremely uncomfortable for many people, and requires a high level of self-critique and a re-evaluation of the reasons behind one’s views. We challenge our own reality and confront ourselves, although this need not be a solitary activity and may best be accomplished through dialogue with others. Everding and Huffaker suggest that these strategies all be enacted in the context of learning environments that are amenable to frank dialogue and growth. Possibilities for what this environment can look like in teaching are described below. THE EMPATHIC CLASSROOM

The first step in creating an educational environment conducive to empathy is to understand a developmental perspective on empathy. Empathy is one of the few aspects of love in which such a perspective has been investigated, and although more work certainly needs to be done, there is enough evidence to suggest that children develop ever more advanced capacities for engaging in sophisticated empathic relationships as they mature. Adopting a cognitive viewpoint on empathy, Commons and Wolfsont (2001) succinctly outline a useful conceptualisation of developmental stages, and caution that any attempt to promote and develop empathy should take these into account. These stages are adapted in order to be summarised in Table 2.1, and some pedagogical implications have been added. Although researchers are still trying to understand the developmental stages of empathy an awareness of what we know of them to date, at least in a general way, is important because it is through such an awareness that educators can provide appropriate levels of support to children. We can adopt a Vygotskian approach and immerse children in activities and ask questions that encourage them to shift their thinking towards the next stage (without suggesting that these stages can be accelerated), while at the same time understanding in our interactions that the expression of some types of empathy are possible or not depending on the developmental stage a student is in. Aside from an awareness of the links between empathy and development, there are other things that can be done to develop empathic pedagogical relationships. The development of empathy in students is germane to this endeavour. One strategy that has met with some success has been to engage in a specific program aimed at empathy development called ‘Roots of Empathy’. In this program a parent and infant visit a classroom on a regular basis throughout the school year (nine times, generally) with a trained instructor coaching students to take note of the development of the baby, 27

CHAPTER 2

Table 2.1. Developmental stages of empathy Stage Sensory and motor actions Circular sensorymotor actions Sensorymotor Nominal

Sentential

Description Beginning with basic reflex responses in infancy such as elicited smiles and responding to obvious distress in others. This gradually becomes more sophisticated by adjusting behaviour to moods and behaviour of others. Eventually moves to physical comforting etc. of others in distress (hugs, etc.). Names feelings. Responds emotionally to emotionality of others. Tries to comfort others through basic problem solving. Notes cause and effect and tries to help (e.g. consoling a crying infant).

Preoperational

Empathises with fictional characters. Empathy is dependent on context (e.g. cats deserve sympathy but not bugs).

Primary

Projects own feelings about a sufferer on to the sufferer. Can recognise feelings of others, but often relates these to own personal situation.

Concrete

Infers feelings directly from expressions etc. at ‘face value’. Links external actions to internal feelings in others on a continuum of intensity. Suffering, internal feelings, actions, and contexts are linked. Knows one can feel and act differently in different contexts. Categorises feelings and responses in individuals (e.g. a certain people tend towards types of feelings/acts). Empathy awarded in line with sufferer status in eyes of observer. Acts on perceived universal principals of caring and suffering. Looks for consistent systems. Understands there are no universal ‘truths’ in empathy, just a coconstructed understanding between people.

Abstract

Formal

Systematic

Metasystematic Paradigmatic

28

Pedagogical implications As children in these stages are responding to others, the importance of continuing to do this should be encouraged. Recognising the emotions of others and appropriate responses are the two primary areas for development. Teachers can be explicit about pointing out emotions and how they present, along with offering a menu of appropriate responses. Attention can be drawn to possible causes and effective helping strategies. Stories can be paralleled to real life events. Multiple possible solutions to fictional problems can be discussed. This natural self-identification can be useful in recognising when own actions hurt others, e.g. ‘How would you feel if that happened to you?’ Exploring the range of different actions that can result from similar affective states may extend understanding of individual difference. Explorations of the variables influencing emotion and responses, and how those variables are complex and can confound categorisation. The logic and possible unfairness of a systematic view can be challenged. Social justice projects can be used to explore feelings of disadvantaged people. Individual relationships can be emphasised along with importance of listening to others.

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

and to try and label the baby’s feelings. Students interact with the baby and parent, ask questions, and try to better understand the relationship and bond the baby and parent have, thus empathising with them. Through this, students are asked to identify and reflect on their own feelings and those of others. Research has confirmed the efficacy of this program for school-age students, noting amongst other positive findings a reduction in aggression and enhanced pro-social skills being demonstrated by students (Gordon & Green, 2008). While Roots of Empathy is undertaken with the assistance of a trained instructor, the absence of such an instructor need not discourage teachers from embarking on a similar project of their own. One can arrange for a parent and infant to visit regularly, and with thought and preparation facilitate a perfectly adequate set of experiences for students. Further, empathy development experiences need not and should not stop there. Visits to local senior centres or other similar facilities for purposeful engagement or other similar sorts of experiences can also do much to boost empathy development (Femia, Zarit, Blair, Jarrott, & Bruno, 2008). Importantly, however, as noted such experiences should always have a purpose and should be mutually beneficial both to students and those they are engaging with. It is counter productive to promote an atmosphere where students pity others, such as the elderly. Rather, for empathy to be fostered the interactions should be respectful. The purpose is to develop a caring understanding of the point of view of others, and those involved in interactions with students should be viewed as having something of value to offer, usually founded in their current or prior experiences, talents, and knowledge. Empathy can also be developed through an emphasis on this in the course of regular teaching. Toranzo (1996) conducted classroom-based action research on a structured and deliberate focus on empathy development. Toranzo primarily tackled the issue by identifying aspects of the curriculum that lent itself to the development of empathy, then devising and conducting activities that emphasised this over a twoyear period in a segregated class for children who were deaf. Some of these activities included teaching about communication strategies, cooperative reading and other types of learning, parent and child interaction days, community outreach activities, pen pals, pet care, and social justice projects. This emphasis on empathy was indeed successful as … students moved from adhering to their own viewpoints to having the ability to understand and use others’ viewpoints to expand their social and academic competence. Social competence improved through their understanding of roles and responsibilities in communication exchanges, their communication skills in general, their classroom interactions and discussions, and their ability to monitor their own behaviors. (p. 126) Somewhat connected to this idea is Schertz’s (2007) notion of engaging in a Community of Inquiry approach to empathy development. Under this model, students develop empathy through dialogue in an environment that supports “…dialogicallybased inductive interactions and peer-mediated, intersubjective gestalts” (p. 191). The Community of Inquiry, according to Schertz, not only fosters empathy, but is itself empathic pedagogy. In a Community of Inquiry students might be seated in a 29

CHAPTER 2

circle to discuss topics proposed by the teacher and themselves. In engaging in this dialogue they can take on different perspectives (possibly through role play), and learn through induction. This communal pursuit of knowledge, it is argued, fosters empathy as students cross boundaries they previously might not have otherwise crossed. While such strategies are helpful in the development of empathy in general, specific attention should be devoted to the relationship between teacher and learner. In a pedagogical sense, the development of such an empathic relationship is critical. The development of this personal relationship leading to a healthy teacher-student rapport cannot occur if the issue of empathy development in a wider sense has not been addressed. Simply put, it is not logical for two individuals who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy in general to be able to apply empathy in a specific relationship. Once a more general capacity for empathy has been achieved, how might an empathic teacher-learner relationship be developed? Many of the tools for the development of empathy in a general sense can be employed to a more focused, specific context. The goal of empathy is to be able to discern and understand the feelings and emotions of another in a vicarious way, and then to engage in introspection in order to identify with the other, and to take whatever action might be required (Arnold, 2006). In developing a personal empathic relationship with a student, it might be possible on occasion to separate these two aspects (vicariousness and introspection) for individual attention. In order to discern the feelings and emotions of another, it is important to develop an affective and cognitive connection with that person. Albert (2003) lists the teacher-student connection as being fundamental to a healthy and productive relationship. Connection involves an emotional attachment, recognition, and valuing of one another. While mutual responsibility for connecting should be taken by both students and teachers, as pedagogical leaders it is the responsibility of the teacher to initiate the development of a connection where this has not occurred as a matter of course. Albert suggests that in order to connect parties must first set personal biases aside and fully accept others, regardless of their backgrounds or perceived flaws. Students must be given attention in order to feel important and valued. This attention can be demonstrated in small and large ways, but certainly an empathic relationship will not result where a teacher is unwilling to give a student sufficient amounts of attention so as that student feels he or she is important to the teacher. Teachers must also show students appreciation for the things they do. This demonstrates that what they do matters, as well as who they are, and that the teacher is taking notice of their good deeds and actions. Affirmation demonstrates an enthusiasm for what students do, and encourages them to believe in their own self-value and see themselves as a worthwhile participant in a relationship. Finally, Albert recommends engaging in affection with students. Can we ever truly feel for and care about someone we feel no affection for? It is important in an empathic relationship that the two participants like one another, and this affection needs to be explicitly demonstrated, either verbally or through appropriate levels of touch. In developing this person-to-person connection through what Albert has called the ‘Five As’ one is then in a better position to understand another, and to be vicarious regarding the affective experiences of another. At this point it is worth considering what is to be done if a teacher and student 30

KINDNESS AND EMAPTHY IN PEDAGOGY

simply do not like one another. Rather than pull away, which might be the intuitive response, it might be worthwhile to consider moving in the other direction with the two parties spending more time with one another. Researchers have investigated the ‘extended contact’ hypothesis that attitudes towards other groups of people can be improved through spending significant amounts of time with members of those groups. To date the results of this extended contact have been found to be positive for children (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp, 1997) with similar research conducted on pre-service teachers and adults with disabilities also demonstrating positive results (Carroll, Forlin & Jobling, 2003). If we can make the jump from this research on groups and focus on the impact for individuals (members of groups) it makes sense that in some instances the development of a positive attitude to another leading to deeper personal connection takes more time and effort than in other instances, and that extended contact may be beneficial. The second part of this equation, introspection, involves a personal stepping back and taking stock following vicarious engagement with another. How does the vicarious identification with the other influence one’s own cognitive and emotional state, and what actions might be taken? This introspection can take the form of personal reflection. Research suggests that if we are able to reflect on stories and events in our own lives, then greater empathic identification with others is possible (Dimaggio, Lysaker, Carcione, Nicolò & Semerari, 2008). Introspection, then, is likely to take this direction. One reflects on the emotions and feelings discerned in the other, and relates these to their own experiences. In doing such one can gain a deeper understanding of the other and arrive at greater empathy. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This chapter has provided a rationale for the use of kindness and empathy in teaching and learning, and has explored what each of these means with reference to pedagogy. In order to infuse kindness and empathy into pedagogy it has been argued that we must first foster this trait in ourselves as well as in the other educators involved. As this is being accomplished, an atmosphere of kindness must be nurtured in the classroom, and kindness and empathy must be developed in students. This can be done through environmental manipulations, along with placing students in situations where kindness and empathy are fostered and learned in an individual-interactive way. Mutually kindness and true empathic understanding, then, become two of the foundations of a loving pedagogical relationship.

31

CHAPTER 3

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

The idea of a loving pedagogy where, following Friere (1970), a teacher and a learner unite in a common search to uncover meanings implies the need for intimacy and for the development of a close and caring personal bond. This is essential if learning is going to occur over the long-term because when difficulties are encountered (as is sometimes the case when learning) a certain level of intimacy and bonding are necessary if the learner and teacher are not to give up on one another and the task at hand. We are more likely to persevere with those we feel close to. The ideas of bonding and intimacy are somewhat intertwined. From one viewpoint we can be said to bond through intimacy, while from another viewpoint it could be said that intimacy follows once a bond to another has been established. A biological perspective offered by Leckman, Hrdy, Keverne, and Carter (2006) associates bonding with “…proximity-seeking, separation distress, and altered autonomic and behavioural responsivity conditioned by the absence, presence, or cues of others” (p. 116). In their view bonding is a biological process resulting from the evolutionary imperative that parents look after their offspring and that same offspring seek to be close to their parents for reasons of survival. If we consider this definition, where those who are bonding are distressed when separated from those they are bonded to, then it is perhaps true that the inverse of this, a feeling of calm and comfort around those we are bonded to, is of key importance to the issue of love as pedagogy. A student who feels a strong bond with his or her teacher is comfortable in joining that person in pursuits related to learning. To not join in the learning pursuits might represent separation which, taking a biological outlook, the student would want to avoid. Research has shown that organisms in which we can recognise signs of bonding actively seek this, and once established such bonds are difficult to break. The infamous experiments on attachment conducted by Harlow in the 1950s using infant macaque and Rhesus monkeys (which are considered now by many to have been unethical and unnecessarily cruel) demonstrated that these monkeys, and if we permit for extrapolation across species, humans, crave attachment to others. Harlow replaced the mothers of baby monkeys with fake foam mothers of various configurations and found that the infant monkeys developed a strong sense of attachment to these fake mothers in lieu of other options and despite their psychosocial inadequacies (Harlow, 1958). That we seemingly naturally crave attachment to others is of enormous advantage to educators seeking a loving pedagogy, especially where teachers create the conditions where students can to some degree bond with them. Social science research on intimacy has frequently focussed on the type of intimacy evident in romantic relationships. This sort of intimacy, while contextually different, does have some relevance to the sort of intimacy that occurs as part of a 33

CHAPTER 3

loving pedagogy. While a number of varying definitions exist (see Prager, 1995) a useful one is provided by Sternberg (1986) who drawing on his earlier research, describes intimacy as (a) desire to promote the welfare of the loved one, (b) experienced happiness with the loved one, (c) high regard for the loved one, (d) being able to count on the loved one in times of need, (e) mutual understanding with the loved one, (f) sharing of one’s self and one’s possessions with the loved one, (g) receipt of emotional support from the loved one, (h) giving of emotional support to the loved one, (i) intimate communication with the loved one, and (j) valuing the loved one in one’s life. (p. 120) This definition is multi-faceted and, depending on the viewpoint from which it is considered, applies equally well to pedagogical context as to a romantic one. In a teaching and learning relationship the mutual promotion of one another’s welfare, a deep understanding and valuing of one another, along with a mutual sharing of oneself leading to emotional support provides a firm foundation from which learning an occur. There is a certain level of psychological security in a learner knowing that the teacher is an intimate partner in the learning process, who understands them, and is present to provide support not out of obligation, but out of a genuine feeling of regard for who they are. The unity provided by intimacy allows the teacher and learner to share the joys and sometimes disappointments of learning, and to support one another both in concrete ways and emotionally throughout the process. When a close bond is felt with another, and appropriate intimate interactions are evident in the relationship, then a sense of loyalty towards one another is engendered. Whatever human failings our behaviour might expose, we generally want to be loyal to the ones we feel bonded to and share intimacy with. Loyalty is important because the idea brings with it the notion that abandonment will not occur in times of need, and that support for learning will be unwavering. Prager (1995) views intimacy as a natural concept meaning that, as is the case with love, it resists definition and has fuzzy boundaries (see also Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson & Boyes-Braem, 1976). It is difficult to decide what counts as intimacy and what does not. Prager, however, provides some useful thoughts on how intimacy might be viewed. She sees it as a superordinate concept, meaning that things that count as intimacy may only share a few common traits, but yet are placed under the same broad umbrella. This superordinate concept is comprised of a few subordinate concepts that have greater internal consistency (the aspects of intimacy gathered under a subordinate concept have more in common with one another). Ultimately, based on this idea of superordinate and subordinate concepts, Prager comes to the conclusion that intimacy is a multitiered concept that can be seen outlined in Figure 3.1 below. Intimacy is comprised of intimate interactions that are divided into intimate experiences (perceptions) such as warmth and affection, and intimate behaviour that can be both verbal and non-verbal. It is also comprised of intimate relationships that occur over expended periods of time with, for example, close friends, lovers, parents, and others. In coming to her conclusions regarding the nature of intimacy Prager acknowledges the work of Eric Erikson. In his biopsychosocial theory of human development 34

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

Figure 3.1. Prager’s (1995, p. 20) multitiered concept of intimacy.

Erikson (1968, 1980) maintained a strong focus on the need for intimacy and bonding with others throughout life in order to achieve a healthy resolution of the conflicts he presented in his eight stages. Indeed, in our teenage years Erikson surmised that we are especially in need of appropriate forms of intimacy as we experience a conflict between feelings of intimacy versus feelings of isolation, highlighting the devastating impact a lack of appropriate intimacy can have on the healthy biopsychosocial development of a teenager. Erikson’s emphasis on the importance of intimate relationships and bonding did not end there. He considered the importance of the need for intimacy and bonding both before and after the teenage years. In Erikson’s view, childhood is characterised by psychological conflicts that, in general, amount to a reliance on intimate relationships with others contrasted against growing psychological and social independence as biological maturity occurs. Healthy development is that which can effectively reconcile growing independence with the need to maintain intimate relationships with those one has bonded with; for example, ones parents. Erikson’s work has implications for the use of an intimate approach to pedagogy, and highlights a tension that will, if we accept Erikson’s view, always be present in intimate relationships between students and teachers. No matter how intimate a teacher and student might want to become with one another, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that the growing independence of the student will always to some degree put pressure on that developed intimacy, likely changing the nature of that intimacy over time. This is as true for teachers as it is for parents. As parents we often express our intimacy with our infants through extended periods of cuddling, for example. When our infants grow to be teenagers such behaviour might be viewed by them as odd. Instead, intimacy with this age group might be expressed in different 35

CHAPTER 3

ways, such as spending time engaging in mutually enjoyable activities together. The intimacy is still there, but it is expressed in different and perhaps more sophisticated ways. So too with the teaching relationship. Once established, an intimate relationship will not stay static, but rather change and evolve over time as the student moves towards greater personal independence. USING BONDING AND INTIMACY WITHIN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE

Accepting that bonding and intimacy are central elements to the idea of using love as pedagogy, and being cognisant of the close interweaving relationship that the concepts of bonding and intimacy have, it is important to consider how each are developed. Thanks especially to research conducted over the last half of the 20th century we know much about how bonding occurs and how intimacy is fostered. How Bonding Occurs Harlow’s early monkey experiments (discussed above) did much to raise the profile of attachment. The influence his work has had on current discourse on attachment and bonding remains significant. For example, well-known books on parenting advice by Sears and Sears (2002) appear to draw heavily on ideas surmised and investigated by Harlow. Sears and Sears recommend attachment parenting, where parents and infants spend as much time as possible in close physical proximity with each other engaging in intimate activities. This, they believe, results in strong parent-child bonds that ultimately lead to a more secure, confident child. This idea echoes that of Harlow (1958) in elevating the necessity of physical touch to produce attachment. With respect to bonding researchers distinguish between two types, and it is important for the purposes of our discussion to consider these. The first type is what is known as an affectional bond, described by Ainsworth (1989) as a need to maintain proximity, and distress when that proximity is not apparent. An affectional bond is long and enduring; two parties, including parents and children, friends, or romantic partners, feel strong affection or one another. Another type of bond, an attachment bond, is described as more intense; these bonds are formed with those we see as being a safe haven (someone to turn to in times of distress) and a secure base (someone to help us resolve challenges). At a minimum an affectional bond is important to develop as part of a loving pedagogy, with an attachment bond between student and teacher being further along the continuum of the positive possibilities bonding offers. It should be noted, however, that attachment bonds are probably much less likely to occur between student and teacher than are affectional bonds. Attachment bonds require intense and sustained levels of intimacy that become harder to engineer in adult-child relationships as children leave infancy (Kobak, 2009), and which due to the time commitment involved become increasing unlikely to be a part of the student-teacher relationship. At face value it might seem that a strong teacher-student bond does involve the student seeing a teacher as a safe haven and secure base within the learning context. This is probably to some extent true, however, Bowlby (1979) was clear that true attachment bonds are limited to only a few specific individuals 36

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

in one’s life. While a teacher could certainly become one of those individuals because multiple, hierarchical attachment bonds are possible (Ainsworth, 1993; Kobak, 2009), the limited number of these relationships a child has makes a teacher-student attachment bond less likely. It may be that in most cases teachers and students must be content with affectional bonding that of course is inherently positive in and of itself. Affectional bonds develop throughout the lifespan (Kobak, 2009). Interestingly, affectional bonds and attachment have been found to change as a child grows and develops in cognitive, neuropsychological, and even physical ways. The parent-child bond, for example, changes with the development of language. As plans become easier to communicate the child is more tolerant of parent absences that can be explained (Ainsworth, 1993). Adolescent physical and cognitive maturation along with hormone changes can also lead to changes in who is sought out for bonding and the nature of the bonding that occurs. A five-year-old child’s affectional bond with his best friend is different to a 16-year-old’s affectional bond with his girlfriend for reasons of maturation in a variety of domains. What is helpful to know from a pedagogical viewpoint is that affectional bonds are produced as a result of the total history of ones interactions with another (Ainsworth, 1993). This has implications for the pedagogical relationship. Taking the developmental perspective into account, the right sorts of interactions need to take place at the appropriate stages of development to produce an affectional bond. For example, interacting with a teenager as if she were a much younger child is unlikely to result in a bond of affection. To produce an affectional bond a sustained period of appropriate, meaningful, and positive experiences with respect to the relationship is required. This is one area where bonding and intimacy intertwine, as such affectionally bonded relationships might be considered as intimate (see Prager, 1995, and the above discussion of her work). While attachment bonding is less likely to occur between teacher and student, it is worthwhile to consider what forms it takes. Important research by Ainsworth (1973) and Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) highlighted the presence of three different types of attachment style in infants. The first, secure attachment, occurred when infants were somewhat concerned when a mother left the room, but who quickly responded to subsequent reassurance. Those who expressed insecure attachment were highly distressed when their mother left the room, and were difficult to console. Finally, there were those who expressed avoidant attachment who were relatively unconcerned at either the departure or return of their mother. These infants seemed to be prematurely self-reliant (Cooper, Shaver & Collins, 1998). It was later found that these sorts of attachment styles were evident not only in infants, but in older populations, including adolescents, and that those with secure attachment turn out to be “…self-confident, socially skilled…and likely to form relatively stable and satisfying long-term relationships” (Cooper et al., 1998, p. 1381). Given that these attachment styles are evident not only in infancy but later in life, teachers pursuing a pedagogy of love can use this knowledge of the different attachment styles to pursue more productive relationships with students as they relate to bonding. While it is unlikely that in practice a teacher can change the attachment style of a student (inadequate research exists for us to know definitively if this is even possible), adopting an attitude that might be more likely to produce feelings of security in a 37

CHAPTER 3

relationship is desirable. An awareness that not all students are secure in their bonds with others can serve as a reminder to teachers to demonstrate constancy and reliability in working with students, and to communicate effectively with them as to ones intentions. Having identified different types of bonding that occur throughout childhood, it is now possible to theorize about the types of bonding that are unique to students and teachers. As has been discussed, an affectional bond is more likely to occur between student and teacher than attachment bonding, however, this does not entirely preclude involvement of some elements of attachment bonding. Attachment bonds can be hierarchical in nature, meaning that they are felt with greater or less intensity depending on the context of the relationship (Ainsworth, 1993; Kobak, 2009). Figure 3.2 provides a model for student-teacher bonding based on ideas discussed above. In Figure 3.2 the student and the teacher share an affectional bond along with an attachment bond. Agreeing with Bowlby (1979) that true and lasting attachment bonds are only formed with very few individuals over the lifespan, and taking into account the notion of hierarchy and multiplicity discussed by Ainsworth (1993) and Kobak (2009), an attachment bond specific to the pedagogical context has been developed and called a pedagogical attachment bond. This doubtless lacks the veracity of an attachment bond between, for example, close family members, but nevertheless seems credible, useful, and attainable between teacher and student. Figure 3.2 also outlines some of the teacher factors and student factors that contribute to bonding. Initially, both must be willing to enter into the close relationship. Teachers must provide age and context appropriate affection to the student, and be consistent in their behaviour in order to be seen as a safe haven and secure base. Bonding will best be achieved when a student feels comfortable coming to his or her teacher when they have troubling academic or other issues (safe haven), or when they want support for taking some type of initiative (secure base). While a teacher will probably not be aware of the attachment style developed by a student in infancy, it is important to be aware of the attachment styles that exist and to respond appropriately if they become apparent. For example, how might a teacher handle an overly ‘clingy’

Figure 3.2. A theoretical model of student-teacher bonding. 38

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

(possibly insecure) student, or one who seems aloof and distant (possibly avoidant)? In the former instance boundaries might need to be made more explicit, in the latter instance discussion with the student might be required in order to get to the reasons for the emotional distance. The Development of Intimacy Like bonding, intimacy is developed over the lifespan, with our earliest intimate relationships beginning with our parents or caregivers. Mothers and infants, for example, typically engage in intimate activities including feeding, physical proximity and touch, and shared experiences all of which lead to feelings of warmth and affection, not to mention the larger idea of developing love. Intimacy changes over time in that as a child gets older more people are generally included in intimate relationships and interactions, with the nature of these interactions varying according to context and the age of the child. As children grow into adolescence intimate interactions and relationships expand to include romantic relationships (Prager, 1995). Subsequent to infancy, the nature of intimacy with one’s parents or main caregivers changes considerably. Children develop a growing awareness of their own autonomy and, using the previously developed intimate and trusting relationship with their parents, begin to incrementally branch out on their own (Erikson, 1968, 1980). This is not to say that these children are any less intimate with their parents, just that they are confident that the intimate relationship has been sufficiently established in order to allow individual exploration. The intimate relationship serves as the foundation from which one can gradually explore the wider world, and to which one can return in the event of calamity. Intimate relationships with others, especially with other children, then begin to develop. A salient example of this comes from the municipal early childhood education system in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Reggio Children (1995), in their book devoted entirely to the topic of tenderness, document the intimate, loving relationship that exists between two five-year-old friends, Laura and Daniele. In her afterword, Mantovani (1995) remarks that In this world, Laura and Daniele have a very special love for each other. Laura is particularly fold of Daniele because he is “half right and half a mess”, like her, because he tells her wonderful things even though he perhaps makes them up. She believes him, because she loves him, because he has a nice face that makes her like him, and she wants to make him happy, because he is her friend, her “bestest friend”. Laura loves Daniele so much that she is even willing to let him believe he is taller than her. Daniele loves Laura because he has decided to marry her, because she only wants to be with him, because they have made a safe promise, as safe as a hiding place, because boys have to have girlfriends since they do not know how to cook even when they are grown up. But perhaps above all because, in Daniele’s own words: “I never even think about that I’m not going to marry Laura, because if I think about that it gives me shivers on my back and I get so nervous”. (p. 58) 39

CHAPTER 3

At school age, while retaining intimate bonds with parents and family members who are still seen as the primary source of intimacy (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987), intimacy with other children is commonplace. Children have ‘best friends’, with intimacy being a key ingredient in sustaining the friendship. Those children who are unable to establish such intimate friendships in their early school years are at risk of becoming increasingly isolated and targets of bullying (Berguno, Leroux, McAinsh & Shaikh, 2004). This friendship intimacy is, however, generally initially limited to same-sex peers with children at the younger end of the school-age continuum demonstrating strong preferences for friends of the same gender (Hay, Payne & Chadwick, 2004). As children grow older their friendships diversify until in pre- and early adolescence they reach the point where cross-gender relationships with other children become more common, although same-sex friendship still remain strong, especially if measured in terms of who children of different genders confide in (girls will more readily confide in same sex friends than do boys) (Buhrmester & Prager, 1995). In her seminal work on intimacy, with respect to children Prager (2005) focuses on intimacy that occurs between children and parents, and children and other children. This is doubtless because, if the amount of research literature on intimacy addressing these topics is any indication, these are the most important intimate relationships in the life of a child. However, and unfortunately, very limited research and literature exists on other types of relationships children can have, specifically intimate relationships with teachers. Given this, it becomes difficult to comment on how intimacy between students and teachers naturally develops without making broad and unsupported assumptions. While comment is difficult some literature does exist that, while not conclusive, has some resonance with what we know about other types of intimate relationships. There is evidence to suggest that in the eyes of students relationships with teachers have a unique quality when compared to relationships with other non-parental adults (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991). Students see teachers as having a role in supporting their social, emotional, and intellectual development and needs that other nonparental adults do not have (Pianta, 1997). This implies that students expect a close personal relationship with their teachers, and it might be argued that this feeling of closeness is akin to intimacy. This perception is positive for teachers seeking more intimate relationships with students as such relationships are expected of them and are being sought by those in their classrooms. Further, Vieno, Perkins, Smith, and Santinello (2005) found increased teacher influence on students as they enter their adolescent years; students increasingly relied on teachers as opposed to parents for support as they grappled with the unique psychological, emotional, and physical changes of adolescence. Teachers increasingly, it seems, become role models. This is consistent with the views of Erikson (1968, 1980) who acknowledged the near crisis (or at least significant tensions) adolescents go through as they attempt to reconcile their growing independence with the intimate relationships they share with parents and other significant adults. Intimacy between students and teachers, then, on one hand could be said to occur fairly naturally, or at least has the potential to. This, however, might be an oversimplification. While students might regard teachers as being in a unique position to support them, the same processes that act on student 40

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

independence from their parents can also act in similar ways on student-teacher relationships (Pretty, 2002). Teachers cannot do nothing and expect students to engage in intimate relationships automatically. They need to work at it, and if teachers adopt a stance of welcoming intimate relationships and treating students appropriately considering their age, the stage is set for students to be drawn towards them as they seek relationships with the adults they place in a special category; teachers. Fostering Intimacy and Bonding in Children In trying to promote greater levels of intimacy between children, adults, and their peers, Roland and Lawhon (1994) offer thoughts on ways to nurture the development of characteristics leading to intimacy. This, they believe, will reduce instances of loneliness and isolation both in childhood and later in life. Roland and Lawhon provide a list of 10 strategies that adults can adopt that might help in nurturing the characteristics they see as leading to intimacy. While directed primarily at those who work with younger children, these strategies can be used also with older students. Table 3.1 outlines the strategies along with some suggestions on how each strategy can be modified for use with older age groups. Table 3.1. Strategies for promoting intimacy characteristics Strategy (Roland & Lawhon, Rationale 1994) Paraphrase what students Aid to communication, say and repeat it back to allowing the teacher to them. properly understand what is being said, and allowing the student space for correction. Use honest, sincere, and This builds a trusting positive statements in relationship between communications. (Seefeldt, teacher and student. 1987). Provide opportunities to be Such an environment heard in a noncompetitive promotes informal, environment (Burr, Day & relaxed conversations Bahr, 1993). making relationships more enjoyable. Use calm words, express Responsiveness to verbal joys, and respond to a moods and preferences child’s cues (Greenberg, is an essential feature 1991). of intimacy. Developing that sensitivity is important in order to establish the correct tone for an interaction.

Modification for older students Not required.

Not required.

Older students tend to have more diverse and possibly less obvious interests. It is important to pinpoint what these are in conversations. Younger children are less sensitive than older children in recognising some the complexity of emotions (e.g. anger) that are masked (see Gosselin, Beaupre & Boissonneault, 2002). One, then, needs to be more explicit in emotional interactions with young children. 41

CHAPTER 3

Table 3.1. (Continued) Read children literature reflecting models of caring behavior, positive emotional health, and pro-social skills. (Lamme & McKinley, 1992). Hills (1993) suggests a parental strategy where potential friends be invited into the familiar environment of the child’s home. Teachers might be able to facilitate these connections. Allow opportunities for engaging in dramatic play (Myhre, 1993).

“Reading to and with a child awakens feelings of closeness, opens new avenues for conversation and encourages children to talk to one another.” (Roland & Lawhon, 1994, p. 40)

Use age appropriate literature and discuss this with older students in discussion groups.

Contact with children and other adults under parental supervision and in the familiar environment of the home assists in promoting more comfortable, natural relationships.

Put on puppet shows involving the children in which friendships and intimate interactions are the focus of the show. (Keen-Payne & Cagle, 1993). Pair older and younger children for some activities (Theilheimer, 1993).

Children will find it beneficial to interact with the puppets, the adult and other children.

Schools can provide familiar places for older students to socialise in, such as student lounges, that are less intensely supervised. Supervision should be directed at ensuring the place is a psychologically safe, healthy, and positive environment. Structure opportunities for students to role play through engagement with the dramatic arts. Students can write and participate in short plays or skits. Teachers can assign topics aimed at exploring relationships. Put on theatrical productions dealing with topics of friendships, relationships, and intimacy.

Encourages verbal skills, interactions, and explorations of different perspectives, feelings, and emotions.

Younger children can enjoy the freedom of interacting with someone the view as being more mature than them, developing different social and intellectual skills in order to interact with an older student. Use positive verbal Undesirable behaviours might instructions. Teaching be redirected or stopped what to do and how to through providing the do it enhances social positive alternative as an behavior better than option in the first instance. punishing inappropriate behavior. 42

Older students are provided with a leadership opportunity coming with an expectation of responsibility towards another.

Not required.

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

Practical Classroom Approaches for Promoting Teacher-Student Intimacy While intimacy is that which occurs between two people it does not happen in a void and requires context in which to operate. Teachers can create a context, or a classroom climate and way of working, that leads students to want to engage in more intimate student-teacher relationships. Mihalas, Morse, Allsop, and Alvarez McHatton (2009) provide some ideas about how teachers can construct more caring relationships with students who have emotional and behavioural disorders. These ideas are applicable and easily adapted to any context in which teachers are attempting to create an environment that is caring, and also more than caring, such as an intimate one. Relevant suggestions by Mihalas et al. discussed below include that teachers assuming the role of student advocates, getting to know students and the lives they live, inviting students to be partners in their education, actively listening to students, asking students for feedback, journaling with students, dedicating consistent time to problem-solve with students, and celebrating success. Intimacy, bonding, and assuming the role of student advocate. We feel close to those who have our best interests at heart. Ainsworth (1989) concluded that attachment bonds are those that are the most intense (compared to affectional bonds) and occur when the object of attachment is viewed as a safe haven (someone to turn to in times of distress) and/or a secure base (a foundation from which challenges can be tackled). In becoming a student advocate a teacher demonstrates to students that they are a safe haven. Students are more likely to bond and become close to those teachers who they see actively defending and protecting them, and putting their interests ahead of all else. Further, it is easy to be a student advocate if, as a teacher, one never loses sight as to the reasons for teaching in the first place. Pre-service teachers go into the profession because they want to work with young people and make a positive difference in their lives (Manuel & Hughes, 2006). This noble aspiration can be best achieved through putting what is best for students ahead of other considerations (such as, for example, employment conditions or conveniences). What is best for students may not always be what they are asking for, of course, but where requests and what is in their best interests differ a teacher can still be seen as an advocate if the rationale behind the making of decisions is adequately explained. For example, students might see it as being in their best interests if the due date of an assignment were to be extended and might ask a teacher to do this. Students, however, might be best served by denying this request, especially in instances where such an extension of due date might be unfair to other students who have already started, or if an extension would mean that many assessment items were due in at one time producing greater stress and pressure in the long-term. In such instances a teacher can still be seen as a student advocate providing the rationale behind the decision were made clear. Intimacy, bonding, and getting to know students and the lives they live. My nineyear-old daughter was thrilled when her Grade Four teacher dropped by unannounced 43

CHAPTER 3

to watch her swimming lesson one Wednesday evening. Indeed, this teacher made a point of attending at least one outside-of-school activity for each of the 24 children in her class. While the effort was significant, the benefits were exponentially greater. My daughter’s interest in school experienced a renaissance. She loved that her teacher took an interest in her life and activities, and made an effort to know her outside of the classroom. She felt close to her, and was sad to be saying goodbye for the summer at the end of the school year. There are numerous ways in which teachers can get to better know their students. These include a variety of formal means such as various interest inventories and surveys (see Mihalas et al., 2009 for a list of these). However, it is probable that if one wants to get at the heart of the life of a student more informal means such as simple discussions and conversations should be employed. It might not be appropriate to employ scientific methods to the natural process of getting to know another, and the attainment of intimacy may indeed be hampered if contrived and artificial instruments and strategies are used in order to get to know others. Intimacy and inviting students to be partners in their education. Intimacy can be achieved even in circumstances where a student is seemingly disinterested entirely in their academic work at school, however, it is obviously more desirable if this is not the case. Indeed, intimacy between a student and a teacher with respect to the education of that student can be viewed as circular. The student feels intimate with and bonded to a professional who clearly values education, thus making them feel more connected to learning. Alternatively, a student’s desire for learning can bring them closer to their teacher who facilitates this learning. This is consistent with the views of both Dewey (1894) and also Friere (1970) three-quarters of a century later. According to Dewey The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences. (p. 78) Implicit in Dewey’s view is a partnership between teacher and student, where the teacher facilitates the development of the child’s own interests rather than imposing learning from above. In following a student’s interests in learning teachers demonstrate subtly that they are interested, and that the student matters. Intimacy, active listening, and asking students for feedback. Rinaldi (2006) advocates for the adoption of what she calls a pedagogy of listening. By this she means that teachers and students engage in mutual listening inclusive of talk, but also other areas that might not be included in narrow definitions of listening. Rinaldi suggests that the idea of listening acts as a metaphor for openness and sensitivity, and therefore extends to interpreting silences, actions, expressions, and the various other hundred spoken and unspoken languages of children. According to Rinaldi “Children are biologically predisposed to communicate, to exist in relation, to live 44

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

in relation” (p. 66). If one accepts this, then teachers who engage in a pedagogy of listening reach across to students who are reaching out to them through their communication, and in doing so are creating a relationship. By listening actively teachers are showing students that they are important and worth the attention. The idea of asking students for feedback suggested by Mihalas et al. (2009) connects well with the idea of listening if considered from the perspective of Rinaldi. Listening becomes a mutual conversation, a two way street, in which the student tells you about his or her learning. Rinaldi’s thoughts on listening as openness and sensitivity lead one to wonder how this might be achieved? According to Shipko (2000) we are already born with innate capacities for openness and sensitivity in the same way that we are all usually born with capacities for love, hate, desire, etc. As is the case with these other capacities, some people are naturally more open and sensitive than others. Drawing on Buddhist ideas, Shipko believes that openness and sensitivity can be cultivated. By this he does not mean that one can gain more of what is an innate trait, but rather that any obstructions to the full realization of that trait can be removed. Broadly speaking these obstructions can be removed through reflection and a realization that one has the potential for openness and sensitivity. This awareness is important because in being aware of the presence of openness and sensitivity one can orient oneself towards further action in those areas. In other words, heightened consciousness of ones own existing capacities for openness, for listening, leads to deliberate and nondeliberate decisions for increased use of those capacities. Journaling with students. Connected to the idea of active listening is journaling. As described by Mihalas et al. (2009) journaling involves the student keeping a diary, that is then monitored and commented on by the teacher. The diary becomes a shared and ongoing conversation between teacher and learner. This is another way for teachers to listen to students, and to build a relationship. In reading journals teachers will gain deeper insights into the lives of students, enabling greater understanding. The sharing of thoughts and feelings back and forth through a journal become in themselves acts of intimacy; such disclosures would seemingly increase as the relationship developed. Problem-solving with students. Mihalas et al. (2009) cite Sprick’s (2006) idea of planned discussions. In Sprick’s view such discussions are an excellent way of promoting closer teacher-student relationships. A planned discussion involves a brief 5–10 minute discussion between teacher and student on a regular basis. The discussion should be relatively informal in nature and focused on particular issues or updates students might have. This setting aside of a dedicated time ensures students are given the teacher’s full attention, enhancing their feelings of worth to the teacher. The content of such discussions is also important. Feelings of closeness can develop when we work together on mutual projects (Rinaldi, 2006), and where the project represents the solving of a personal problem the student has, this closeness is likely enhanced. 45

CHAPTER 3

Celebrating success. Letts (1995) views a part of a teacher’s role as being that of ‘cheerleader’. In her view teachers can sometimes fall into the trap of becoming so busy with the day-to-day demands of the classroom that they pay inadequate attention to what has been accomplished. She suggests regular celebrations and recognitions of achievement, be it individual or by the group. In her view “The caring classroom is a place where students believe they are valued for the good that they do and the potential that they bring” (p. 55). Intimacy, Bonding and Teacher Discomfort To this point the discussion has focussed on promoting intimacy and bonding between students and teachers under the assumption that teachers are comfortable with this. However, this is not always the case. Like all people, teachers grow up with different attachment styles and have differing preferences when it comes to being intimate with others. Some teachers, whether as the result of inherent traits, upbringing, perceived views of society, or a combination of all of these, feel heightened levels of discomfort and even anxiety where intimacy with students is concerned. It might be helpful for teachers in this position to remember that the development of a bonded and intimate relationship involves a partnership between teacher and student, and tends to evolve organically over a period of time. Erikson (1980) viewed it as unhealthy to simply jump into intimate relationships completely without offsetting this to some extent with a preservation of the self through the retention of some measure of isolation. In Erikson’s view this was especially true during adolescence. Teachers, therefore, should not necessarily promote intimate relationships with students that occur at too fast a pace. Teachers must retain their own sense of self while by degree engaging appropriate but in increasingly intimate and connected relationships with students that progress according to the comfort levels of both parties. What is required is a commitment to engage in the close relationship and the willingness to transgress personal comfort levels as required slowly, and with consideration and deliberation. A MODEL FOR PROMOTING INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

Taking into account the various views outlined in this chapter, it is possible to construct a conceptual model for promoting intimacy and bonding between teacher and student. Using a modified version of the definition of intimacy provided by Prager (1995; see Figure 3.1) as a basis, Figure 3.3 below outlines this conceptual model, and serves as a summary for the content in this chapter. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This chapter has outlined some of the features of bonding and intimacy, both of which it is acknowledged are difficult if not impossible to comprehensively define. These definitions have been used as a basis for describing how intimacy and bonding occur, and how they can be promoted between teacher and student. In becoming 46

INTIMACY AND BONDING IN PEDAGOGY

Figure 3.3. Conceptual model for promoting student-teacher intimacy and bonding.

intimate with students, teachers need to exercise care and patience. Feelings of intimacy and bondedness do not occur overnight but rather result from longer-term positive and trusting relationships. While it is not possible to force such relationships (they tend to occur naturally) there are things teachers can do to provide the best opportunity for such relationships to develop. Some of these strategies have been outlined in this chapter.

47

CHAPTER 4

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

To this point arguments in this text have been based largely on philosophical and psychological grounds. Chapter Two offered primarily psychological views of kindness and empathy development, and Chapter Three outlined views of psychologists such as Prager and Erikson along with educators and philosophers such as Carla Rinaldi to support the arguments made with respect to intimacy and bonding. While those disciplines remain of consequence, sacrifice and forgiveness have special relevance to religion. The term sacrifice is derived from the Latin word sacrificium that means ‘to make sacred’. The religious connotations from which the modernday word is derived are interesting given the continued emphasis present notions of sacrifice receive in religious discourse, particularly (but obviously not limited to) Christian religious discourse. Current notions of the meaning of the word sacrifice tend to include ideas of giving up something, going without something, or making some kind of special effort that is ultimately to the detriment of self but to the advantage of others (Gelven, 1988). According to Noller (1996) sacrifice is an essential element in a definition of true love, sitting alongside caring, respect, and loyalty. The most obvious example of sacrifice in religion is the Christian notion of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The idea that engaging in such behaviour is noble, worthwhile, righteous, and even holy has come down to those of us in the western world through the centuries as a result of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and those who have grown in the western tradition are impacted by it whether an individual considers him or herself Christian or not. It is a part of the shared western cultural heritage. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on sacrifice, however, and similar notions exist in other religions. Islam emphasises obedience to God, an act that can involve personal sacrifice in order to live in line with those expectations. In Islam submission of the personal will and ego to God in order to do his work is critical (Yahya, 2006). Eastern religions, such as some versions of Buddhism, view sacrifice as a liberating practice. A person who makes sacrifices rids him or herself of attachment to that which is impermanent. Attachment to impermanent things, such as possessions and even the self, hold one back from achieving an improved reincarnated state and eventual release altogether from the cycle of death and rebirth that is the ultimate goal of many Buddhists (Carrithers, 1996). This is an oversimplified explanation of the complex ideas behind Buddhist notions of sacrifice, and does not hold true for all Buddhists, however some thoughts from the Dalai Lama have resonance regardless of a person’s religious background. In his view we should ultimately seek to take on the suffering of others, allowing them opportunities for happiness as we try and dispense with the unpleasantness we have taken on. While the Dalai Lama recognises that this is not a practical possibility in many instances (for example, 49

CHAPTER 4

how can one take on illness on another’s behalf ?), he does imply that it is an attitude we should adopt and strive for (Dalai Lama, 2002). The psychology of sacrifice, however, shows us that acts that might appear to be sacrificial at face value are sometimes done in order to benefit the individual making the sacrifice. Willer (2009) conducted experiments aimed at uncovering the reasons as to why individuals might make sacrifices in order to benefit a wider group. He found that those who made sacrifices were compensated by the group through being awarded higher status, greater interpersonal influence, higher levels of cooperation, and even receiving gifts of greater value. Willer found that these rewards were adequate to ensure that individuals continued to engage in this self-sacrificing behavior, thus creating a cycle. The same might be said of teachers. Teachers who make sacrifices for a group of students might be ensuring their higher status, influence, and student cooperation. One would hope, however, that with respect to teaching these are unintended consequences of the sacrificial act rather than the reason for engaging in that act itself. Further, Van Lange et al. (1997) found that willingness to sacrifice in romantic relationships was associated with strong commitment to the other, high satisfaction in the relationship, poor alternatives to making the sacrifice, and high investments in the relationship. If this is extended to pedagogical relationships it might be the case that teachers with high levels of commitment, satisfaction, and investment in their teaching role are more willing to make sacrifices for students. Impett and Gordon (2008) provide an overview of sacrifice and examine its various characteristics. They are careful to note that their work …focuses on sacrifice in the context of adult romantic relationships because the bulk of the empirical research on sacrifice has focused on these types of relationships. Nevertheless, we believe that understanding sacrifice in a variety of different relationship contexts (e.g., with friends, parents, children, etc.) is an important endeavor and one that provides many interesting directions for future work. (p. 80) A loving pedagogy might be linked to these religious and psychological views of sacrifice because it involves at times engaging in some measure of personal suffering, and therefore sacrifice, on behalf of students. The continuum ranges from small but important sacrifices such as giving up a recess coffee break to comfort an upset student, to more significant sacrifices including advocating for students where required in the face of threats to career progression, job security, or worse (such as in an instance where abuse needs to be reported regardless of pressures that can exist not to report the abuse). While this text obviously does not represent a research report involving field work or experimental design, the position is not an intractable one and it is possible to theorize about the type of sacrifice that might apply in a pedagogical sense based the work of Impett and Gordon along with others, especially in the absence of a clear body of research work on sacrifice and pedagogy. How might some of the notions of sacrifice evident in romantic relationships described above apply to the pedagogical context? Impett and Gordon draw on the work of Van Lange et al. (1997) to tease out different types of sacrifice that are seemingly broad enough to apply to many contexts. These types are highlighted in Table 4.1. 50

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

Table 4.1. Types of sacrifice (Impett & Gordon, 2008) Types of sacrifice Active

Passive

Major

Daily

Description Doing something that you do not want to do for the sake of another. In a pedagogical sense this might involve working longer hours to make adjustments for individuals in lesson plans, or meeting with parents outside of school hours when student concerns arise. Forfeiting something that would otherwise be to your advantage, or that you would enjoy doing. For example, a teacher might miss a night out at the opera in order to attend a school play, or not accept a promotion in order to work with a particular group of students whom the teacher feels needs him or her. Sacrifices that entail significant effort or loss on behalf of the person making the sacrifice. These involve losing or forgoing that which is of great value. For example, not taking a higher-paid teaching or administrative job in a more desirable location because of the perceived need in the current school. Daily sacrifices are those that are important (usually to the recipient) but that have a small impact on the person making a sacrifice. For example, spending 10 minutes after school with a student in order to provide assistance or advice on an issue. Impett and Gordon (2008) note that daily sacrifices can become major sacrifices over time. For example, depending on timing the extra 10 minutes after school may cause a teacher to miss his or her son’s hockey game that, if it occurs each week, might represent a major sacrifice.

It should be noted that both active and passive forms of sacrifice can occur in both major and/or daily contexts, however it seems less likely that in the course of daily life an individual would consistently be in a position to make major sacrifices, a circumstance that might not be desirable in any event. Helgeson and Fritz (1998) might call this ‘unmitigated communion’. Unmitigated communion is a situation akin to martyrdom, especially in situations where the sacrifices are unilateral with one person consistently making unreciprocated sacrifices for others. Fritz and Helgeson (1998) have found that this is a very unhealthy situation for the person making the sacrifice, both physically and psychologically. This has particular relevance for the pedagogical relationship. While it is important to encourage students to also make sacrifices for their teachers, classmates, friends, families, and others in a pedagogical situation, it is probable that the teacher will be called on to sacrifice for students more often than the other way around. Teachers need to be aware of the sacrifices they are making, and what is productive and what is not. For example, a teacher who sacrifices her own personal life by attending school events most evenings and then staying up late each night planning as a result is unlikely to be able to offer students 51

CHAPTER 4

high quality lessons during the day due to fatigue. The sacrifices made in this sort of situation are counter-productive and probably unsustainable. The real sacrifice in this situation might be to attend fewer evening events in order to be refreshed and ready to deliver engaging classes during the day. According to Impett and Gordon (2008) with reference to romantic sacrifice “…research suggest[s] that sacrifice is not always a beneficial strategy, and that people should proceed with caution when giving up their own interests for the sake of others, particularly if they are involved in relationships in which their sacrifices are not reciprocated” (p. 88). The same likely holds true for sacrifice in a pedagogical sense. FORGIVENESS

When we engage in relationships with others, especially those requiring sacrifice and the higher levels of interaction necessary to foster love and unity, we often inadvertently (or possibly deliberately) hurt others with our actions. Despite the best of intentions teachers can act in ways that hurt colleagues, students, and families. Further, students can act in ways that hurt both their teachers and peers. These hurts represent a barrier to a pedagogy of love and need to be addressed. The notion of forgiveness is closely linked to notions of sacrifice because often to forgive requires the sacrifice of an individual’s ego, pride, and possibly even the physical and psychological basis of the wrongdoing in the first instance. Forgiveness can be found at the heart of many religions, with a notable example being found in Christianity that holds the central belief that Christ died in order that the sins of mankind be forgiven. In the Christian faith God forgives humankind for sin, and following that example Christians try and forgive others. Forgiveness is a feature of many religions and while simply being religious does not necessarily make a person more forgiving (members of all religions are probably equally good or bad at forgiving one another) it is the focus on forgiveness as a loving act that is important (Rye et al., 2000). Forgiveness is also evident in psychological discourse. The American Psychological Association (APA) (2006) notes that forgiveness …is a process (or the result of a process) that involves a change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate decision to forgive…This process results in decreased motivation to retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence….forgiveness occurs with the victim’s full recognition that he or she deserved better treatment. (p. 5) The APA definition represents a compilation of views of forgiveness from a variety of scholars who are by no means in complete agreement. For example, it is noted that forgiveness may or may not involve reconciliation between the parties, but rather a recognition that hurt has been caused, a release of resentment, and a willingness to simply move forward. This is likely what is behind the often used phrase “I will 52

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

forgive, but I won’t forget”. This is probably unavoidable in some contexts, such as where extreme acts such as substantial physical and psychological harm have occurred, however, considering the pedagogical context of forgiveness, forgiving but not forgetting seems most undesirable. To not forget (meaning to completely leave behind the wrongdoing of another rather than erasing memory, which might be impossible) is to make forgiveness conditional. Certainly steps might be taken to ensure that a hurtful act does not reoccur, but to proceed on the basis where an individual’s prior hurtful actions are always remembered and this is made explicit as part of the process of forgiving might lead to questions as to whether true forgiveness has really taken place. A certain tension between the two parties might remain, with the offender always being made to feel guilty for past wrongdoings, and the victim always harboring some type of resentment. According to Jacobs (1991; also cited in West, 2001) Forgiveness, acceptance, and the generosity of care can be very powerful means of exerting a hold or pressure over another person, especially if we do not let the other forget what we have done for them, nor how selfless we have apparently been. Forgiveness can be a type of revenge. (p. 10) Another contentious feature of forgiveness is reconciliation. Most scholars note that forgiveness can occur with or without reconciliation; forgiveness might simply result in two parties wishing each other well and then going their separate ways (APA, 2006; West, 2001). This is adequate in instances where it is possible for two parties to move ahead without each other, but in most school and classroom contexts this is impractical. Indeed, there are some that view reconciliation as highly desirable regardless of the circumstances (Kaminer, Stein, Mbanga & Zungu-Dirwayi, 2000). Teachers and students, and students and peers, simply must interact with one another if learning is to occur and therefore it would seem that reconciliation is an essential element of forgiveness with respect to pedagogy. It is hard to see how a pedagogical relationship can be productive in the absence of reconciliation. Further, reconciliation is a more loving way for two people to move forward, being more consistent with attaining the unity that is central to a loving pedagogy. Forgiveness, then, in a pedagogical sense has a number of important features that include: – Recognizing that a wrong has been done – Engaging in an intentional and conscious process of forgiving – Letting go of negative emotions – Leaving the past in the past – Reconciliation Forgiveness involves more than resorting to trite platitudes and insincere expressions of remorse or acceptance, and West (2001) warns against clumsy attempts at forcing forgiveness. Further, expectations that forgiveness can be achieved quickly or easily might be unrealistic. While it is easy to forgive small offenses (which raises the question: is forgiveness really necessary in such instances?) it is more difficult to forgive significant wrongs. This is more likely to require a process that occurs over time rather than a single one-off event at which forgiveness is decided on as a course of action (West, 2001). 53

CHAPTER 4

The work of Kohlberg (1976) provides us with an informative way of looking at the issue of forgiveness. As noted in Chapter Two (and also in Loreman, 2009) Kohlberg’s work is problematic for a number of reasons, however, notwithstanding these problems his stages of moral development help to provide us with an explanation of why a person might make a decision to forgive. Work by Enright, Santos, and Al-Mabuk (1989) added a layer to Kohlberg’s work by examining stages of forgiveness. Sometimes, of course, decisions are made because it is merely expedient to do so, however Kohlberg shows us that such decisions might be made for other reasons, and Enright et al. build on that. Table 4.2 represents a synthesis of the work of Tapp and Kohlberg (1971) as presented by Loreman (2009, p. 76–77) along with the additional stages of forgiveness hypothesized by Enright et al. (1989). Table 4.2. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and Enright et al.’s hypothesized stages of forgiveness development Kohlberg’s stage

Level

Preconventional.

1: Punishment and Judgements about right reward and wrong are made on orientation the basis of physical punishments and the power of those in authority. 2: Instrumental relativism

Conventional.

3: Interpersonal concordance

Judgements are made on the basis of the fixed rules and laws of a society, and a respect for the legitimate authority to enforce those laws. 4: Law and order

54

Description

Children make moral decisions based on avoiding punishments or attaining rewards.

Enright et al.’s stages of forgiveness development Revengeful forgiveness.

Children will forgive only if they get adequate revenge on the wrongdoer. The needs of others are Restitutional or taken into account, but compensational only if they coincide forgiveness. with the hedonistic needs of the individual Child will forgive making the moral once restitution is judgement. made or to relieve own guilt. Moral decisions are Expectational based on the desire to forgiveness. please others and in doing so to be a good Children will forgive boy. if others put expectations or pressure on them to do so. One must show respect Lawful expectational for authority by forgiveness. obeying the fixed rules set down by society’s Children will forgive lawmakers. because their religion demands it of them.

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

Table 4.2. (Continued) Post-conventional.

5: Social contract

Judgements are made based on a movement towards individually held moral principles.

6: Universal ethic

Moral judgements are made based on what is good for society as a whole. Following the law is important, but there is a recognition that laws should have some flexibility and be open to change in order to preserve individual rights. Moral judgements are made on the basis of deeply held personal beliefs about what is moral which may or may not correspond to the law. Moral decisions are made on the basis of conscience and ethics, defending human rights and respect for individuals.

Forgiveness as social harmony. Forgiving is important because it promotes social harmony, reducing conflict and friction in society.

Forgiveness as love. Forgiving is viewed as an act of caring, compassion, love, and possibly reconciliation.

These theories view people as progressing developmentally through ever more complex levels that act as a basis for solving moral dilemmas including those involving forgiveness. While teachers and most other adults can often function at the post-conventional levels of viewing forgiveness as important because it promotes social harmony or is consistent with an act of love, according to Enright et al. children operate at the level of forgiving for less noble reasons, such as responding to pressure from others to forgive, or as the result of restitution. While it is important to be aware of the possible existence of these stages because they can help to illuminate the reasons for student’s behaviour with respect to forgiveness in many instances, it is also important to remember that they are hypothetical only and may not hold true for all people in all contexts. For example, many parents would hope that their children are able to forgive them for some mistake because they love them and want the best for them rather than because they feel they have had adequate revenge as is suggested in Enright et al.’s first stage. Indeed, notwithstanding Enright et al.’s research, the explanation involving forgiving based on more positive sentiments seems more likely. This stage of ‘revengeful forgiveness’, as is the case with some of the other stages, is illogical. It could be argued that having taken the opportunity for revenge, forgiveness is no longer an option as the account has been settled through the vengeful act. Enright et al. might have fallen into Kohlberg’s trap of presenting children in a negative light and not recognizing their more noble forgiving sensibilities that those who live and work closely with children know they have (see Loreman, 2009, for a critique of Kohlberg in this regard). 55

CHAPTER 4

Haidt (2001) questioned Kohlberg’s model and argued that moral decisions are often made intuitively and are based on cultural and social influences. To some degree Enright et al.’s model seems to take that into account, recognizing the social pressure that can result in forgiveness at the expectational stage. The adults and college age students in Enright et al.’s study also seem to be culturally influenced via religion and authority. Further, at the ages where this was measured religiosity impacted the development of forgiveness showing that one’s cultural environment can have an influence on development. It was also speculated that perhaps those who have a lot to forgive, and are therefore more practiced in the art of forgiveness, can operate at higher levels. While this research paid more attention to adolescents than children, if we follow Haidt’s reasoning it might also be possible to argue that a sociocultural context, such as a school or classroom explicitly using love as pedagogy, could also impact student rationalizations for providing forgiveness in favor of love regardless of stage. Religion, peer pressure, and cultural authority all have an impact, so why not love? An emphasis on love in the classroom might serve to re-orient a student away from the less noble preconventional reasons for forgiveness towards a more loving perspective. USING SACRIFICE AND FORGIVENESS WITHIN A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE

Having examined the theoretical context of sacrifice and forgiveness it is now possible to turn to the pragmatic aspects of how these ideas apply to the loving classroom setting. Chapter Six in this text helps to demonstrate that it is possible to teach in a context of mutual sacrifice and forgiveness, but first these practices must be infused into everyday school and classroom activities so that they become commonplace. In order to infuse these an attitude of sacrifice and forgiveness must be developed in school staff and students so that it becomes part of personal characteristics. It is the sum total of teachers and students with this attitude that will go a long way to creating a sacrificial and forgiving classroom and school environment. Fostering Sacrificial Attitudes Self-sacrificing behaviour has been found to be socially rather than genetically determined, meaning that given the right set of social circumstances self-sacrificing behaviour can occur and, presumably, also be learned (Bell, Richerson & McElreath, 2009). In order to examine how sacrificial attitudes in teachers and students might be fostered, it is first important to understand two broad types of sacrifice. Impett, Gable, and Peplau (2005) based their work on motivation theory to connect two types of motives for sacrificial acts, and these motives seem to apply to a pedagogical context. The first is called an approach motive that is positive in nature. Approach motives involve sacrifices that are pro-active in nature and are usually done in order to ensure a positive outcome. For example, a sacrifice of personal time might be made by a teacher in order to ensure an argument between students is sorted out. The second type of motive is called avoidance motive. Avoidance motives aim at avoiding a negative outcome. For example, a teacher might put extra time into 56

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

working with a student so that he has a better chance of passing a school test, thus avoiding the negative outcome of failure. Both motives are valid. While approach motives tend to elicit positive feelings where a situation that was already acceptable has now been improved thanks to a sacrifice, avoidance motives occur in situations where without a sacrifice loss or damage might occur and might evoke feelings of relief and gratitude. While it is counter-intuitive in this day and age to focus on the negative, with respect to sacrifice it might be argued that avoidance motives result in more meaningful outcomes than do approach motives where, at worst, the status quo remains the same. Understanding motives for sacrifice is useful background knowledge for teachers and students because in consciously deciding to make a sacrifice one can better identify the goals and reasons for that sacrifice and therefore the possible beneficial outcomes for the recipient. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter Van Lange et al. (1997) noted that willingness to sacrifice was associated with strong commitment, high satisfaction, poor alternatives, and high investments within an intimate relationship. It is the development of these characteristics, then, that might be beneficial to the fostering of a more sacrificial attitude towards interactions with others in general. Fostering strong commitment to others in a pedagogical context. The fostering of commitment in teachers to their jobs and the students they serve is important because students of teachers with this commitment not only do better academically, but they also develop more positive attitudes towards school (Reyes, 1990). Park (2005) viewed teacher commitment as occurring in three main areas, that are largely in agreement with Graham (1996). These include organizational commitment, teaching commitment, and commitment to students. Park defined commitment to students as “…teacher devotion to and responsibility for student learning and behavior. This definition assumes that teachers who are committed to students will have strong interests in student learning and school life” (p. 464). Graham (1996) identifies six primary factors that seem to engender teacher commitment to schools, classrooms, and students. These are: – Autonomy and efficacy. Commitment is developed in environments where teachers feel they have control over their work, and are free to make decisions that they feel are in the best needs of students. Ingersoll (2001) found less attrition in schools where teachers had more autonomy. In having more autonomy teachers choose to commit to their students because they feel empowered to make that decision. – Participation. Teacher commitment is developed in contexts where teachers feel they have a stake in decision-making at the school level. Models of distributed school leadership can be particularly effective in developing this sense of participation and organizational commitment in a school (Hulpia, Devos & Van Keer, 2009). Further, support for teachers from the principal is a key influence in the level of commitment sustained in a school (Park, 2005). – Teacher feedback. Graham (1996) suggests that students and colleagues can provide feedback on positive aspects of teaching, along with ideas for improvement. This sort of feedback encourages reflection, relationship, and fosters an attitude of commitment to improving teaching. 57

CHAPTER 4

– Collaboration. In collaborating teachers feel more connected to one another, and through pursuing common goals a greater commitment to the task of teaching and students can be fostered (Bernstein, Troisi & Pompilio, 2009). Further, teachers can collaborate on projects with students, bringing them closer together and fostering commitment on that level. For example, students and teachers who collaborate to set up a school recycling project might feel a common sense of achievement and connectedness, in the end resulting in a greater likelihood that sacrifices will be made for one another. – Resources. The provision of adequate resources to enable a teacher to do the work of teaching comfortably is particularly important in fostering feelings of commitment. Borman and Dowling (2008) found that resource provision is a key factor in moderating rates of teacher attrition. Those who are more satisfied with the resources provided to them are more likely to stay committed to working in their school and classroom environment. – Learning opportunities. The provision of learning opportunities is possibly connected to developing teacher autonomy and efficacy. The intended outcome for teachers who have the opportunity to engage in professional development is to become more skilled in the art and science of teaching, developing competencies and feelings of self-efficacy. Teachers who are not able to access meaningful professional learning opportunities demonstrate lower levels of commitment (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). The presence of these primary factors can lead to enhanced teacher commitment with respect to their schools and classrooms, ultimately setting them up for enhanced commitment to individual students. They might be seen as necessary underlying conditions that need to be present for strong commitment to occur. The development of this strong commitment is desirable as it represents a pre-condition for the willingness to make sacrifices for students (Van Lange et al., 1997). Fostering high satisfaction with relationships in a pedagogical context. Much of this book has addressed the topic of forming intimate relationships with students that serve both teachers and those students well, especially Chapter Three. In addition to what has been discussed previously, Murray (2002) outlines some of the benefits of fostering productive teacher-student relationships, with particular attention to details that would likely produce a relationship that would be highly satisfying to both parties. His work focussed on students with high-incidence disabilities, however, the suggestions are equally valid for all students. His five teacher recommendations for how to foster these relationships, with the first one modified only slightly so as to apply to a wider group of students, include: 1. Recognize that students need to feel supported by adults within schools. 2. Provide students with opportunities to learn skills for building positive relationships with adults. 3. Learn more about students’ backgrounds, interests, and communities. 4. Develop increased awareness of classroom interactions. 5. Model and expect appropriate behavior. These recommendations, if adopted, would conspire to help produce a highly satisfying relationship between students and teachers, however one problem with 58

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

these recommendations is that they are all unidirectional, coming from the teacher. As noted in Chapter Three, students can also take responsibility for fostering close relationships with teachers and peers and the conditions in which this responsibility can be articulated to students and developed should be provided. When students and teachers work together to produce highly satisfying relationships, both parties are more likely to make necessary sacrifices as they arise in order to try and preserve and even improve that relationship. Examining alternatives to sacrifice. Clearly sacrifice for sacrifice’s sake is not a sensible way to proceed. In Van Lange et al.’s (1997) view those in relationships sometimes make sacrifices because the alternatives to making the sacrifice are less desirable than the impact a sacrifice has on the person who makes it. For example, a teacher might choose to sacrifice financial resources in order to purchase school supplies for a student in need. This obviously has a negative impact on the teacher, but if the alternative is that the student has difficulty succeeding in school if the resources are not available then it might be a sacrifice worth making (however, although this is by no means unheard of, in reality most schools would pay for this ahead of individual teachers). It would make no sense for a teacher to similarly sacrifice financial resources for a student who is already well supplied by his or her parents. The sensible approach to sacrifice is to examine what alternatives exist, and if better options are available to take advantage of those. Fostering high investments in relationships in a pedagogical context. If the study of love as pedagogy teaches us anything it is that personal relationships are critical and investment at the highest level should be made in them. When commitment in the form of time, energy, and other personal, social, and institutional resources have been invested in a relationship then it is more likely that sacrifices will be made to preserve and protect that investment. We do not tend to walk away easily from activities in which we have invested heavily and are committed to (see discussion on commitment above). Muller (2001) viewed investment in student-teacher relationships as social capital, and found that there were weak but some benefits for all students in terms of academic consequences in math, however, for students at highrisk of dropping out of High School particularly the investment in a relationship with a teacher was substantial and mitigated against their high-risk status. The teachers in this study who aided in producing this positive effect in math had made investments in relationships with their students through being interested in them, expecting success, listening to them, praising efforts, and caring about them. Muller argues that both student and teacher decide how heavily to invest in a relationship based on the expected pay-off of that relationship. If they expect the relationship to result in some kind of beneficial gain they will invest more social capital than if they anticipate more modest gains. Teachers will invest more if they think students can do well, and students will invest more if they see a benefit in investing or a cost in failing to invest. Teachers and students assess one another and then negotiate a relationship. However, teachers are clearly the more powerful partners in these relationships and, according to Muller, likely set the tone for how much a student eventually decides to invest. If teachers behave in positive ways towards students 59

CHAPTER 4

and articulate high expectations, those students are obviously more likely to invest in the relationship than if the teacher is negative about their potential. Teachers, then, need to take the lead in demonstrating commitment, ensuring that all students are aware that they have high expectations of them, believe they can succeed, and are cared about. When teachers make this initial investment students are more likely to follow suit. Once heavy investments are made in a relationship by both parties, commitments are engendered and sacrifices where necessary are more likely to occur in order to preserve the relationship, as is the case with fostering satisfying relationships discussed above. Fostering Forgiveness When considering how to foster forgiveness in pedagogical contexts and relationships it is important to bear in mind two key concepts from the discussion earlier in this chapter. First, forgiving significant hurts should not be viewed as a short-term process to be completed in a single discussion or interaction (West, 2001). Second, the work of Enright et al. (1989) on developmental aspects of forgiveness, while problematic in some respects, should be taken into account when working towards forgiving solutions. For example, it might be worth considering if a young child’s perceived lack of adequate compensation for a hurt is presenting a barrier to forgiveness and what might be done to address that. A number of models for arriving at forgiveness exist, and West (2001) in outlining the strong link between spiritual and psychological therapeutic views of forgiveness, suggests there are two different but helpful models that approach the problem from different perspectives. These models have been developed by Enright and Coyle (1998) and validated by Enright and Fitzgibbons (2000) for use in a variety of forgiveness contexts (but not pedagogical) and Worthington (1998), primarily for use with couples, with Worthington and colleagues refining the approach some years later (Worthington, Mazzeo & Canter, 2005). Enright and Coyle’s model is a 20-step process presented in four phases covering cognitive, behavioural, and affective aspects of forgiveness (West, 2001). Worthington et al.’s five-step REACH model, on the other hand, is a more succinct model with a Christian foundation based on the use of empathy and a motivation to forgive and be forgiven. Despite their different perspectives, the two models might bear some comparison as can be seen in Table 4.3 below. Table 4.3 shows that comparison between these two models is not necessarily linear or direct, although both models when examined in isolation present a linear process for use. This comparison is useful because it highlights a persistent empathic aspect of forgiveness that runs through and informs both approaches. Worthington (1998) argues that his model is based on the development of empathy between the injured and the injurer. The comparison in Table 4.3 shows that at least three of Enright and Fitzgibbons’s (2000) phases (and arguably also the fourth) also involve empathy. The development of empathy, then, as discussed in Chapter Two is critical and further demonstrates the interrelatedness of ideas in the area of love as pedagogy, and the knowledge that if one aspect of love is ignored it may be at the expense of the attainment of another. 60

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

Table 4.3. Comparing Enright and Fitzgibbons’s (2000) model of forgiveness with Worthington et al.’s (2005) REACH model Enright & Fitzgibbons’s phase

Tasks

Relevant phases from Worthington et al.’s five-step REACH model

1. Examination of psychological defenses and issues involved 2. Confrontation of anger; the point is to release, not harbour, the anger 3. Admittance of shame, when it is appropriate 4. Awareness of depleted emotional energy 5. Awareness of cognitive rehearsal of the offence 6. Insight that the injured party may be comparing self with the injurer 7. Realization that one may be permanently and adversely changed by the injury 8. Insight into a possibly altered `just world’ view

1. Recall the hurt

9. A change of heart/conversion/new insights that old resolution strategies Injured gains an are not working accurate understanding 10. Willingness to consider forgiveness of the nature of as an option forgiveness and makes 11. Commitment to forgive the offender a decision to commit to forgiving on the basis of this understanding.

2. Empathize with the one who hurt you

Uncovering phase Injured gains insight into whether and how the injustice and subsequent injury have compromised his or her life.

Decision making phase

Work phase Injured gains a cognitive understanding of the offender and begins to view the offender in a new light, resulting in positive change in affect about the offender, about the self, and about the relationship.

12. Reframing, through role taking, of who the wrongdoer is by viewing him or her in context 13. Empathy and compassion towards the offender 14. Bearing/accepting the pain 15. Giving a moral gift to the offender

2. Empathize with the one who hurt you

3. Offer the altruistic gift of forgiveness

4. Make a commitment to forgive

61

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.3. (Continued) Deepening phase Injured finds increasing meaning in the suffering, feels more connected with others, and experiences decreased negative affect and, at times, renewed purpose in life.

16. Finding meaning for oneself and others in the suffering and in the forgiveness process 17. Realization that one has needed others’ forgiveness in the past 18. Insight that one is not alone (universality, support) 19. Realization that one may have a new purpose in life because of the injury 20. Awareness of decreased negative affect and, perhaps, increased positive affect, if this begins to emerge, toward the injurer; awareness of internal, emotional release

5. Hold on to forgiveness

In practical terms, how is this information to be used in a classroom? A busy teacher in a class of 25 or more students might find working through a 20-step process for forgiveness not only time consuming and impractical, but also in many situations quite unnecessary. Further, if forgiveness has a developmental quality then teachers of younger students might find it difficult to use Enright and Fitzgibbons’s model effectively due to the level of detail involved that might overwhelm these students. It should also be noted that neither model was developed for use in a classroom, both being intended for use in therapeutic or counselling settings most often with couples. They are, therefore, being generalized here to a different context from their original design. Also, teachers are not usually trained counsellors so these models should be looked on as being useful in an informal sense in order to structure the process of forgiveness. With that in mind modifications to either process for use in specific classroom contexts might be appropriate. Pragmatically speaking, both models probably have their place for fostering forgiveness in a loving classroom. Enright and Fitzgibbons’s model might be best employed in circumstances involving older students and where a serious injury has taken place. Worthington et al.’s model might be better suited to use with younger children and in instances where less serious injury has taken place. Enright and Fitzgibbons’s approach seems more comprehensive, while Worthington et al.’s seems more expedient, and both have their uses. In each instance the teacher must be willing to facilitate the process of forgiveness to the best of his or her ability, whether it is occurring between the teacher and a student, or between two students. While West (2001) warns against clumsy attempts at facilitating forgiveness, teachers who come to this task with sensitivity, judgement, common sense, and a caring attitude towards both parties have the best chance at arriving at a successful resolution, that of reconciliation. This is supported by Worthington et al. (2005) who remark that …we can discern, through empirical studies, no pattern of therapist characteristics that predicts effective promotion of forgiveness. Across a variety of 62

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

studies, no consistent link has been found among therapist education, experience, and professional field and outcomes…. Based on theory, we would hypothesize that counselors who demonstrate empathy, sympathy, compassion, and love are likely to help group members forgive because forgiveness is thought to be centrally related to those qualities. (p. 241) In order to make it more applicable to the pedagogical context, however, Worthington et al.’s work can benefit from some re-orienting in order to become a teaching approach. This re-orienting is presented below in Figure 4.1 and is based substantially on the work of Worthington et al. Consider the following hypothetical scenario of forgiveness using the model presented in Figure 4.1. The scenario involves two students with one forgiving the other for the destruction of a piece of work the student valued and was proud of. In phase one the student describes the incident and outlines the reasons for feeling hurt. The teacher prompts and questions as required, but does not dominate. In this hypothetical situation the work was destroyed seemingly with no provocation. Lots of effort was put into doing work and the injured student indicates he was proud of the achievement and feels angry and upset. In phase two empathy and understanding with respect to the offender and injured party are developed. In this scenario it becomes apparent that the offender was jealous of the good work and was harboring a grudge resulting from a prior perceived slight. This was a chance for revenge. Based on phase one the offender recognizes how hurtful destroying the work was. The injured party understands the rationale behind the action. In phases one and two the teacher ensures that both parties remain calm and listen to and understand one another. In phase three forgiveness is suggested as a possible solution, and the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of this idea are thought through and physically listed on a whiteboard. Eventually the injured party offers the option of forgiveness and waits to see if this offer is likely to be accepted. In phase four the offender, having come to a realization of the hurt caused through the dialogue in the previous phases, expresses remorse and accepts forgiveness, promising not to repeat the behaviour and to help re-do the project. The injured party promises to try and not bear a grudge into the future. A pact is therefore made. Finally, as a way towards reconciliation in phase five, the two students agree to work on repairing the project together, and possibly engage in some other projects together in order to repair and develop the relationship. The teacher agrees to support this arrangement. Note that Figure 4.1 entails the involvement of the offender who must seek and accept the forgiveness when offered. Further, this process is not merely a matter of the injured party empathising with the experience of the offender. The offender must also recognize that what occurred was wrong and develop empathy (and probably sympathy) for the person who was injured, as well as committing to not repeat the offense. Importantly, the idea of reconciliation has been included as the final phase of this process. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the need for reconciliation in forgiveness is a debatable point, however, with respect to pedagogy, it is highly desirable and indeed essential in most situation in order to ensure the continuation of harmonious, loving pedagogical relationships. 63

CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.1. Pedagogical model of forgiveness. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

While martyrdom for its own sake is unproductive in contexts where teaching and learning through a loving relationship is the main focus, it is natural to want to make sacrifices for those we love in situations where more positive alternatives do not exist. In addition to the direct benefits that result from the sacrifice, it also shows those we sacrifice for just how much we care about them. Forgiveness can be a form 64

SACRIFICE, FORGIVENESS AND PEDAGOGY

of sacrifice, as a way of ridding a relationship of barriers caused by hurts and wrongdoing. The extent to which empathy plays a role in both processes demonstrates the linkages between the various aspects of love artificially separated for the purposes of enabling broader and perhaps more structured discussion in this book. In reality, love is an interconnected concept, and with respect to pedagogy ignoring one aspect results in a negative impact on other aspects.

65

CHAPTER 5

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

To this point the discussion on kindness, empathy, intimacy, bonding, sacrifice, and forgiveness has been largely oriented towards the idea that, fundamentally, love involves a relationship between two people. In the majority of pedagogical contexts, however, this must be expanded to include multiple loving relationships between all individuals in a community. In an ideal situation a classroom operating in ways consistent with a loving pedagogy is one in which each member of the classroom has a special relationship with, and love for, every other member. The relationships, therefore, are complex, dynamic, tangled, and interwoven. In reality it is clear that such an environment is highly difficult to achieve given differences in individual attitudes, investment, background, beliefs, and other characteristics, however, this ideal situation is what should be aimed for. Ideal situations are rarely if ever attained in the sphere of social relationships, but while it is easy to scoff at idealism it is virtually self-evident that aiming high provides the best chance of achieving the most desirable outcome. The ideal of each member of a classroom community having a special and loving relationship with every other member implies acceptance. This is not to be confused with tolerance. Tolerance can be seen as merely putting up with someone, perhaps begrudgingly (Loreman, 2009), while acceptance means finding a comfortable mutual foundation on which to build a relationship. Acceptance implies reconciling ourselves with differences in others that might initially cause some dissonance, and to some degree recognising the inherent value of that difference. In a previous work I remarked that “acceptance of diversity means to recognize value in the difference, while at the same time emphasising that all children share in a common humanity and need to be able to participate in all facets of society together” (Loreman, 2009, p. 96). This sort of acceptance and building of a loving community requires an inclusive approach. The term ‘inclusion’ is a contentious one but at its heart implies non-rejection of anybody for any reason. It is the opposite of exclusion. Under an inclusive approach everybody has the same opportunities to participate in the same activities in the same contexts, even if adaptations need to be made to facilitate this. An inclusive community is an accepting community; one in which love can grow and be demonstrated in the course of the daily lives of each community member. Selective communities, while capable of fostering love between the included members, are only partial communities if the view is that true communities should be accepting. Classrooms in neighbourhood schools are certainly capable of accepting all and reflecting local demographics, and those that exclude and marginalize individuals or groups of people based on personal traits are missing opportunities to extend kindness, empathy, bonding, intimacy, forgiveness, and sacrifice to others, and to accept the same from them. With reference to how love is characterised in this book, 67

CHAPTER 5

schools and classrooms that reject others are not characterised as fully loving. The more exclusive a school becomes, the further it moves away from ideal loving pedagogy. EXPLORING A LOVING CLASSROOM COMMUNITY

In Cohen’s (1985) view the idea of community implies the acknowledgement of difference from those outside of the community, and similarities with those who are in the community. With reference to classroom and school community, this difference from the outside rests with the identity of the school or classroom as being distinct from other parts of the local community, while at the same time being comprised of members of that community who share something in common; involvement in the school or classroom learning context. In addition to this, a community is not just a collection of people present in some common but distinct context, the term also implies the existence of a network of relationships germane to that community (Allan, 1996). With reference to love as pedagogy the desired goal is to have those relationships based on mutual love between members of the learning community, and a common purpose that is to learn and to support the learning of others. The relationships are contextually bound to the classroom and school environments and the sorts of activities that generally occur, and are expected to occur by members of the community, at school. Bickert, Jablon, and Dodge (2005) argue that “a classroom community enables teachers to address children’s basic needs, promote their resilience to hardship conditions, teach the values of respect and responsibility, and foster their social and academic competence” (p. 46). Stone (2005) examined the practices of award winning teachers and found that building classroom community was one area these teachers tended to promote, noting the positive implications for classroom management and relationship building. Further, the building of classroom communities has been found to be helpful in combating anti-social behaviors such as bullying. Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, and Voeten (2005) found that an effective means of combating bullying is to turn students who would normally be passive bystanders into active defenders of the victim. This is doubtless achieved in part through education, but also in classrooms where a sense of community is developed. We are less likely to stand by passively and see valued community members get hurt. This, however, does not imply that those demonstrating anti-social behaviours would be isolated and alone. They too would be members of the community, and this membership is important in helping them to adjust their behaviours. Peterson and Loreman (2005) recognised that students demonstrating anti-social behavior are prone to social exclusion. The natural response to someone hurting others is to reject them. However, isolating a student with challenging behavior is likely to simply perpetuate the cycle as the student is more likely to victimise those he or she has no personal connection with. Peterson and Loreman have suggested that a better approach might be to gather around the student and use the strength of the positive classroom community to support and guide the student towards more pro-social behavior through caring, example, and understanding. 68

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

Maslow’s (1987) hierarchy of needs illuminates the importance of classroom community and the benefits that students gain from it, a point also noted and discussed by Bickert et al. (2005). Maslow divided human need into two broad categories. Deficiency needs comprise the four bottom layers of the triangle and are those that must be addressed in order to move forward. Growth needs are those that, as the name suggests, are pursued by humans in order to grow once the deficiency needs have been adequately accounted for. Maslow’s hierarchy and its relevance to classroom community are outlined in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1. Relationship between Maslow’s hierarchy and classroom community.

69

CHAPTER 5

Examining classroom community with reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs shows us that community is one way of meeting those needs in order to enhance motivation for learning, and learning itself. The fostering of classroom community in which loving relationships are encouraged and valued can help address physical, psychological, and emotional needs in students thus producing the conditions for personal growth toward self-actualisation. BUILDING CLASSROOM COMMUNITY

Having argued that classroom communities are germane to the success of loving pedagogy it is important to address how these communities can be developed. Classrooms are dynamic environments and it is not always easy to take a group of students and staff sometimes arbitrarily grouped together because of age and school choice, and turn that group into a community. A community is not simply a group of people breathing the same air; as is discussed above, it implies relationship, acceptance, and common purpose. These relationships and purposes should be based in love. Based on experience and a review of the literature the process of building and sustaining a loving classroom community might be theorized as occurring in a four-phase taxonomy as follows:

Figure 5.2. Taxonomy of building and sustaining a loving community.

70

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

Working through the processes involved in each of the four phases outlined in Figure 5.2 above would help to ensure that the needs in Maslow’s hierarchy are adequately addressed for all, and where it is evident that they are not, then the phase in which these needs are to be accounted for can be pinpointed and adjustments can be made. It should be noted, however, that comparisons between the four phases outlined above and Maslow’s hierarchy are not necessarily linear. For example, fostering individual relationships is important in the satisfying of needs at many levels. Given the necessity of working through the phases to foster classroom community with a group of students, what practical strategies can be used? Phase One: Constructing the Framework In some very rare cases a sense of classroom community and common purpose can come about in the absence of teacher leadership, but in the majority of cases unless the teacher leads from the front a coherent, caring classroom community is unlikely to develop. Social organization is important. In this phase it is the responsibility of the teacher to provide the framework on which the development of the classroom community can rest. This is not to say that the process is a paternalistic one, but rather that the teacher must assume the leadership position until the community is functional and can take on more of the leadership itself. Even at that point, it needs to be said, the teacher can not abrogate complete responsibility for the functioning of the classroom community and must always be vigilant and ready to provide guidance if the community reaches a point where it is in peril. In practice, the leadership of the teacher in this phase amounts to establishing protocols, procedures, and rules for the classroom. Students should be involved in establishing these but they are generally not, in the first instance, going to be organizing and leading this phase and the younger the group of students the less they will be capable of independent participation. Class protocols, procedures, and rules that are commonly understood and developed provide students with a sense of safety, both physical and psychological. Most humans, students included, appreciate a sense of order and predictability at least some of the time. First, common understandings of acceptable ways of interacting in the classroom should be established and understood by all. These understandings might be termed ‘rules’, however, this term comes with connotations of authoritarianism and top-down teacher enforcement. While direct teacher intervention may at times be necessary, ultimately all members of the classroom should own the rules, and as such the term ‘covenant’ might be more useful. A covenant implies mutually developed and agreed on codes of conduct, an understanding of how people in a context will behave towards one another. Under this model teachers become guides, coaches, and role models, encouraging others to do same (Bloom, 2009). Some ideas for establishing a set of guidelines comprising a classroom covenant aimed at producing a loving learning environment include: – Raise student awareness about the need for a covenant. Ask them to imagine and discuss what a class might look like without a code of conduct, or where students did not show that they care about one another. Would that be desirable? 71

CHAPTER 5

– Facilitate discussion in small groups about how members of the classroom should behave towards one another, and what guidelines might be needed to ensure that. What do loving interactions look like? How do people act when they care about one another? Get them to prioritize. Which guidelines are most loving and which are not? – Facilitate a whole-class discussion based on the results of the small groups. Try to achieve consensus on how many and which guidelines should be made explicit in the covenant. – Advise students to keep guidelines down to a minimum, regardless of student age. Not every contingency can be accounted for in a set of guidelines. It is best to focus on what really matters, and 3–5 broad general principles are generally enough. Students can’t remember many more than that, and guidelines do not replace common sense. – Guidelines for behaviour should be positive and grounded in ideas about what loving interactions are. “Don’t disrespect your classmates” can easily be changed to “Treat your classmates like you value them”, providing direction for desirable behaviour. – The classroom covenant should be signed by all members of the classroom community and posted in a prominent place to serve as a reminder to all. Classroom procedures are equally important and are probably best established by the teacher as opposed to students. These procedures can include such relatively mundane but important areas such as use and storage of classroom equipment, protocols for distributing resources, the routine for entering and leaving the classroom, what students do if they need to use the bathroom, what they do if they are thirsty, etc. Teachers have the training and background to know what procedures work best with the age group in the classes they teach, and student input into such details is probably generally not required (and in most cases even wanted) by students. The key is to have all members of the classroom community understanding and agreeing with the various classroom protocols and procedures put into place. This understanding helps to address Maslow’s (1987) levels of physiological and also safety needs. It is on this common foundation that a community can be built. Phase two: Fostering Individual Relationships A loving community is only as strong as the individual relationships that comprise it. This book has addressed the fostering of individual relationships in some detail throughout the text, and especially in Chapter Three. It might be tempting to jump directly from the framework constructed in phase one to promoting social cohesion in phase three, however, this would be a mistake. The development of individual relationships is an extremely important precursor to building social cohesion which risks being superficial in the absence of strong personal bonds between individual classroom members. Although it would be ideal it is unreasonable to expect that all members of the classroom will develop close personal relationships with each other member. The simple mathematics of this make it unlikely in practice. In a class of 25 students 72

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

this amounts to 300 separate relationships. The time it would take to establish and sustain 300 meaningful and loving relationships in one classroom would likely mean that little else in the school year would be accomplished except for relationship development. Schools do not have the luxury of that sort of time to dedicate to this important process (there is a curriculum to learn!), and even if they did, holding up the development of other important aspects of a community entirely in order to achieve this would not be desirable. A pragmatic approach represents a compromise. Following the building of a covenant in phase one, a period of relationship building between members of the classroom can commence, facilitated perhaps by specific activities from the teacher aimed at moving this process forward. Once every member of the class has had the opportunity to build three or four meaningful relationships (and they don’t necessarily all need to be fully developed yet) then phase three can commence. Importantly, while there are situations where members of a classroom have had no prior contact with each other, for example kindergarten and years of school transition, often students in a class know each other already from previous years and so the process of relationship building is not commencing at the very beginning. Of course, prior history is not always positive and sometimes steps might need to be taken to repair damaged relationships, but in classrooms where students already have a few strong relationships with others the task in this phase is generally made a lot easier. The work of relationship building does not end once the process has moved on to phase three, but rather continues throughout the school year. The fostering of these relationships addresses Maslow’s (1987) belongingness and love needs as well as, to some extent, self esteem needs. Relationships, especially the sorts of loving relationships advocated in this book, provide a sense of belonging. Further, self-esteem is enhanced when we recognize that people want to have a relationship with us because they like or admire something about us. Teachers should also be careful at this stage to ensure that all students have developed at least some meaningful relationships and hopefully loving relationships prior to moving on. A student who has no meaningful social relationships in the class will be marginalized in phase three. It is without question the job of a teacher to facilitate social relationships for those who have none prior to moving forward. A loving pedagogy demands it. Phase Three: Social Cohesion At this point in the process a classroom might be characterised as being comprised of members who are all aware of and hopefully following common protocols and procedures as established in the covenant, with clusters of relationships and friendship groups distributed amongst the class. The next task is to build social cohesion, to bring together the various relationship clusters under one common banner of the classroom community. This task is made possible by the common frameworks of protocols and procedures constructed in phase one. Relationships built on these common understandings are likely not to be so far apart in nature that they can not be brought together. This is not to imply that the task is easy, just within the realm of possibility. 73

CHAPTER 5

This phase addresses Maslow’s (1987) growth needs of needing to know and understand, and aesthetic needs. Students’ understandings of relationship and community are enhanced through their participation in each phase of this process, and their appreciation (aesthetics) of the benefits of community develop as they work through the process of becoming a functioning member of one. But how is a teacher to bring together the disparate clusters of individual and small group relationships in order to make a functional whole where everyone relies on everyone else? The key is in reducing the emotional and psychological distance that has kept the various clusters apart to this point. In essence, it is important to provide these relationship clusters with opportunities to interact and connect with one another through activities that require this. Although the term ‘team building’ has become somewhat of a cliché it is more or less what must occur in this phase. The various relationship clusters in a classroom must be built into a common team that sees the importance of unity through the support of its individual members. There are any number of excellent classroom team building activities available for free on the internet ranging from brief 5-minute introductory games to longer activities aimed at helping group members understand one another and appreciate and value difference. Due to ease of availability such activities need not be outlined here, but they are highly recommended. Short activities could easily be infused into the daily routine of most classes. Slavin, Hurley & Chamberlain (2003) noted that social cohesion theorists argue that members of a socially cohesive group engage in common tasks and care about the success of the group and individuals. in it because of a commitment developed towards that socially cohesive group. Emotional and psychological distance between group members is reduced. Slavin (1983) suggests that a good way of facilitating social cohesion is to place students in situations where they are interdependent and must rely on the expertise of all individuals within a group. Slavin’s task specialisation, known also as the jigsaw method, involves sorting students into expert groups. In these groups they become experts in one skill or area essential to the accomplishment of a wider task. Each group becomes expert in a different area, then reconvenes into mixed groups to solve a problem requiring the multiple forms of expertise learned. In this way each individual is critical to the success of the common project, building cohesion and interdependence, and must interact with a wide variety of other students. This is just one example of a strategy that can build social cohesion. It is important to emphasise interdependence between students, and to take the time to reflect on group processes to as to help students understand the value of each member’s contributions to the group accomplishment. Phase Four: Community Control The aim should be for a loving classroom community to reach a dynamic end point. Where community control is assumed the potential of the community (and the individuals in it) is to varying degrees realized, consistent with Maslow’s (1987) final level of self-actualization. This is the point at which the community is strong enough to assume control of its own direction, and to self-regulate and sustain its core sense of community as it changes and adapts to contexts and individuals both 74

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

internal and external. One way of achieving this is through classroom meetings. Classroom meetings are a positive way for a classroom community to come together and organize itself in a democratic and participatory way. This statement comes, however, with a caveat. Due to the nature of very young children it is probably not possible for them to assume full control of their classroom community or effectively participate in formal classroom meetings independently, although they might be able to assume control of some aspects and participate in more informal group discussions. Teachers of young children can make decisions that work for their context about how much control children in their classroom should have, and over what. Classroom meetings have tended to be recommended for use as a classroom management tool with respect to discipline (see Loreman et al., 2010; Nelsen, Lott & Glenn, 1993) and while this is a useful function of the classroom meeting, they also have other applications. Classroom meetings can be used as a means of having a community review its accomplishments and the contributions of each member in order to strengthen social cohesion in the group. They can deal with problems faced by the community, and plan for future events. The older the students are, the less direct participation will be required of the teacher, but formal class meetings can work well even with children in the middle elementary years and upwards. At a classroom meeting a community can take stock, celebrate the contributions of each member, and hold accountable and come up with a plan to assist those who have challenged the community or who for other reasons require further support. Modified from the ideas of Nelsen et al. (1993) the following format for a classroom meeting might assist students to assume control over their community: 1. Compliments and appreciations 2. Review of community activities since last meeting: a. Discuss the activity/ies. b. Discuss the outcome/s. c. Discuss the process/es. d. Recognize individual contributions. 3. Address community issues: a. Outline problem. b. Share feelings while others listen. c. Discuss without fixing. d. Ask community for problem-solving help. 4. Plan for future community activities: a. Discuss possible activities. b. See if others are interested. c. Identify how all individuals can participate & contribute. d. Decide to do/not do the activity. 5. Other business/ideas/comments/concerns. It is important that as much as possible students assume the control and leadership of the classroom meeting. Loreman et al. (2010) suggest a rotating meeting chair and other mechanisms, such as a ‘conch’ or ‘talking stick’ to ensure only one person speaks at a time. Initially the teacher may have to lead meetings before handing over 75

CHAPTER 5

control to students once a routine is established, however, the teacher should never completely relinquish authority and has the obligation to step in should meetings get out of hand. The four phases of building and sustaining a classroom community will in all probability not run smoothly in all situations but are nevertheless worth embarking on. Activities occurring within each phase can be adapted to meet individual circumstances. Ultimately, the building of a loving and accepting classroom community hinges on the goodwill of the participants along with structure and guidance from the teacher. Acceptance of all is critical to community building and all aspects of a loving pedagogy. EXPLORING ACCEPTANCE

All members of any given community are paradoxically similar and different. Similarities between individuals in a classroom community usually include age, living in the local neighbourhood, common courses of study, and often also interests and hobbies. Differences might include socio-economic status, race, culture, ability, gender, religion. and other areas. A loving classroom community needs to accept all members fully, to embrace them, and to add value to the community by emphasising the positive aspects of diversity. A loving community cannot afford to marginalise certain individuals or groups. Acceptance of small differences between individuals is routine (we are not all exactly the same), however, it is not always easy to accept those who are significantly different in some way. We might feel that we have nothing in common with the other person. There might be communication or cultural barriers. We might fear traditions we do not understand. We might have stereotyped views of certain groups and expect them to behave in certain ways. It might be helpful to know that such feelings are normal and have their roots in our psychological makeup and also in the historical legacy of the last few thousand years, and in particular the past century. A wide variety of theories exist that help to explain why, in psychological terms, humans have a tendency towards intolerance of difference. Byrne (1971) found that humans are attracted to those who exhibit similar attitudes and behaviours to their own. Crystal, Watanabe, and Chin (1997) argued that the opposite of this, feelings of repulsion directed that those who are different, is also true. Crystal et al. succinctly reviewed ideas that might help to explain personal feelings of intolerance towards those who are different. These explanations include multiculturalism, contact, and contextual dependence. The multicultural perspective (Berry, 1984) argues that we are intolerant of others we see as being a threat to our own culture. The stronger we perceive our culture to be, the less fearful and intolerant of others we are likely to be. The contact perspective (Newberry & Parish, 1987; Royal & Roberts, 1987) is based on fearing the unknown. In the case of disability, personal contact with those who have a disability has been shown to reduce fear and intolerance of this sort of difference (Carroll et al., 2003). Those who we have no contact with are sometimes more feared. Contextual dependence (Sigelman & Toebben, 1992) is theorized as being dependent on culture and individual contextual circumstances. For example, 76

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

some Middle Eastern cultures are intolerant of homosexuality (in Saudi Arabia the penalty for homosexuality can be public execution). In such a cultural context, individuals might become intolerant of homosexuality, however, if they live in a family with a beloved sibling who is gay then that fear and intolerance may not be present, or at least the intolerance and fear might be mitigated or questioned. Another barrier to acceptance of all regardless of difference might be a historical one. Vlachou (2004) argues that one of the barriers to inclusive education is that there is a long history of institutionalization of people with disabilities with a professional industry that has developed around that. Professionals with careers invested in segregated models of education might want to perpetuate a system whereby students with disabilities are not educated in inclusive settings. That the early part of the 20th century was one in which a medical model dominated and people with disabilities were sorted into institutions according to their disability is undeniable (Polloway, Patton, Smith & Smith, 1996), and educational institutions are currently grappling with the challenges that a movement away from such a model entails. This has resulted in a continuum of educational approaches. In some instances, full inclusion has been the model, in other instances there has been a mixture of some integration and some segregation. In addition to this, fully segregated educational and residential settings still exist in many jurisdictions. Attitudes and opinions vary as to which approach is best, although there is now a formidable body of literature and research supporting a fully inclusive educational approach for reasons of academic performance (Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Demeris, Childs, & Jordan, 2008; Fisher, Roach & Frey, 2002), social development and communication skill development (Fisher et al., 2002), and social justice (Booth, 1996). Acceptance implies a welcoming and valuing of difference by a community rather than rejection and marginalization. For this reason, a fully inclusive educational approach where all are welcome comes closest to meeting the ideal of acceptance. Limits to Acceptance Given the discussion above it might seem contradictory to now focus on limits to acceptance, however, a loving classroom is not inconsistent with one in which such limits can exist. Kay (2009) reports a case from a Canadian school that had adopted what it considered to be a policy of full acceptance of diverse cultures. This policy was followed to the point where a Jewish teacher was forced to endure anti-Semitic taunts and disrespectful behavior from some Muslim students because the school considered this to be an expression of the students’ culture and religion that they had no right to question. Eventually, despite seeking assistance from the school, school jurisdiction, and even the police hate crimes unit the teacher was forced out of the profession. This case points to an important aspect of acceptance. In allowing and arguably even endorsing the taunts of the students on the grounds of culture this particular school was not demonstrating acceptance of anything other than hatred. This is clearly the antithesis of a loving pedagogy. It is right and loving to accept the culture and religion of students, to value this, and to foster this in a diverse classroom. It is similarly right and loving for those who are accepted into the community 77

CHAPTER 5

to respond with equal measures of love and respect for the other members. Where this respect is not evident the community can help the individual to see this and to change. A healthy and loving community does not allow members to abuse one another, but rather fosters and nurtures understanding of difference and relationships. With respect to the case in Kay’s article the solution is clear. The actions of the students should not have been accepted, and the school and classroom community might have been called on to assist the students to come to different understandings. The right approach by a loving community might in time be able to help change such views and actions. Such limits to acceptance apply when the actions of the individuals are chosen and can therefore change, but what about circumstances where an individual represents significant challenges to a classroom community as the result of innate traits that cannot be changed such as severe disability? This is a different issue entirely to the case of Kay’s taunting students. In this instance, because the individual is not exercising choice, the community has the responsibility to accept that individual, to gather around the student, to understand, empathize, and support whatever adaptations and modifications need to be made to enable that student to actively participate in inclusive classroom life. Students with disabilities are different, but then again everyone is different in some way. It is just a matter of degree. BUILDING ACCEPTANCE IN THE CLASSROOM

Building acceptance in the classroom is to some degree a matter of ameliorating or completely negating the barriers to acceptance discussed above, and the classroom community can act in concert with the efforts of individuals to accept all classroom members into that community. The ultimate aim to is have a rich, diverse, and harmonious loving classroom community. Prior to discussing how multicultural, contact, and contextual barriers can be overcome it is helpful to consider one barrier that impacts all the others: the historical legacy of exclusion. Because history is what it is and cannot be changed, it might be imagined that there is little that can be done with respect to the historical legacy of exclusion. While it is obviously true that the past cannot be revisited, we can act to change the legacy of that past as it presents itself in our current lives. This can be done through awareness. Where groups are excluded the easy option is to rationalize this exclusion though thinking that this is a modern-day occurrence based on current scientific research-based knowledge and decisions that this approach is best. This sort of thinking, however, assumes that practice is indeed science and research based and springs out of an historical void. The folly of this thinking might be best demonstrated with respect to the inclusion of students with disabilities into regular neighbourhood schools. I have argued that exclusion of students with disabilities continues to occur in a systematic way despite compelling evidence that suggests inclusion is more beneficial for all students (Loreman, 2009). The reason for this exclusion might be that some school systems throughout the world have operated in this way for many years and change is viewed as complex and difficult. An awareness that the system of exclusion has antecedents in the historical treatment of people with disabilities is 78

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

helpful because it shows us that this system has a basis in history as well as the use of science, and that we might benefit from leaving this ineffective practice behind with other outdated educational practices already left behind (such as lecture-style teaching to young children and corporal punishment in countries such as Canada and Australia) for the benefit of all students. In sum, this amounts to a wider style of critical thinking, one that takes into account historical context in addition to thinking about the scientific basis of practice. Overcoming Multicultural Barriers to Acceptance Multicultural barriers to acceptance come about when certain cultures within the multicultural framework feel threatened (Berry, 1984). Multiculturalism implies the gathering together of people from different backgrounds who retain their unique cultural identity (possibly ethnic, possibly something else) while also participating in the wider culture. Society becomes like a mosaic of different cultures (Claval, 2001). Schools and classrooms can be viewed as multicultural societies if they are comprised of groups of staff and students who identify with the school and classroom, as well as identifying with sub-groups within those contexts such as, for example, gender. If insecure communities feel threatened by other cultures, the antidote to this is to make the school and classroom community feel secure to the point where difference is not seen as a threat. This is analogous to a kind of group self-esteem, where the community feels comfortable enough with itself to accept difference. For example, a class of children of primarily one cultural background is less likely to feel threatened by the introduction of children from another culture if they do not feel that their beliefs are in any way under threat. However, if the new children begin making what are viewed as intrusive cultural demands this might be perceived as a threat by the majority, resulting in a lack of acceptance of the new children from the minority cultural background. It is clear, then, that multicultural barriers to acceptance can be tackled on two fronts. First, the existing classroom community and culture must be made to feel secure without lapsing into xenophobia, and this can be done through activities that recognize what is positive and unique about a particular classroom group. Second, students from new minority cultures entering into this multicultural environment can be sensitized to the need for respecting the culture and practices of the community they are entering into, possibly as part of a discussion during their induction or initial meeting with the classroom teacher. In this way the mosaic of classroom culture can exist with the dominant culture being welcoming, accepting, and interested in the sub-cultures of which it is comprised. The simplicity of this solution should not be taken to mean that the actual process of overcoming multicultural barriers to acceptance is an easy one to engage in. Cultural views and practices are often deeply entrenched, and achieving the sense of group cultural security required to be able to effectively accept others is often no easy task. This is where continuity of approach becomes important. Ideally a sense of cultural security needs to be developed over years with a consistent message 79

CHAPTER 5

coming from multiple teachers and the school community as a whole. Teachers can foster a multicultural environment through modeling and explicitly teaching about what multiculturalism is. This is sometimes facilitated through the inclusion of multicultural content in some school curricula. For example, the social studies curriculum in Alberta, Canada, attempts to infuse the perspective of people from First Nations, Metis, and Inuit backgrounds throughout all grade levels in order to produce heightened cultural awareness and understanding in the province. The security of the classroom community can be enhanced through children knowing that they will not be marginalized and threatened by other sub-groups in the classroom, that all cultures are important, and that the policy of the teacher and classroom community is to respect and value all equally. Overcoming Contact Barriers to Acceptance An unfortunate aspect of human nature is the tendency to fear what we do not know or understand. Students and staff can fear groups of people they have had no or little prior contact with. These barriers can be overcome, although significant effort and a deliberate approach is required. Often personal contact and interactions with individuals from the group that produces the initial anxiety can help to alleviate feelings of fear, mistrust, and discomfort. For example, people with disabilities are sometimes feared or pitied for any number of reasons, such as media stereotypes or lack of involvement of non-disabled people with people from these groups, nevertheless, personal interactions can help to break down feelings of apprehensiveness and pity as they allow those without disabilities to see the person behind the disability. Carroll et al. (2003) found that an incursion model where people with disabilities interacted with pre-service teachers over a period of time was helpful in reducing negative feelings about people with disabilities. Brownlee and Carrington (2000) reached similar conclusions with their group of pre-service teachers who on occasion seemed almost transformed by the experience of direct contact and interaction with people with disabilities. In order to overcome contact barriers to acceptance in a classroom the answer for teachers is that opportunities for contact with diverse groups both within and from outside the school and classroom community should be pursued. This may be achieved by bringing representatives of these groups into the classroom, or through excursions into the local community. Teachers must be aware of tokenism. If contact barriers are to be truly broken down then in all likelihood multiple visits need to be arranged. For example, a class of students from mostly Anglo-Saxon backgrounds in North America are unlikely to be more comfortable with students from a First Nations background as a result of a single visit by an Elder and two representative students from a reserve community. Rather, many students would need to visit on multiple occasions, with interactions on these occasions being focused and meaningful, perhaps with small groups of children working on a curriculum-based task together. In this way each cultural group might better understand and value one another, as well as gaining the feelings of comfort such personal contact often brings. 80

COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

Overcoming Contextual Barriers to Acceptance Contextual barriers to acceptance might only be partially overcome in a school because the school exists within the framework of a wider outside culture that is more difficult to change. Contextual barriers might be seen as the overall atmosphere of acceptance that prevails in a society, combined with the context of individual interactions with others from groups different to our own. Sigelman and Toebben (1992) argued that children are more or less intolerant of others depending on what they are asked to tolerate combined with the context of that request. For example, a seven-year-old boy might be happy to play dolls with his sister at home, but might be less accepting of this sort of play if his sister proposes this at school in front of his male peer group. The problem here rests not with the individual (who would gladly play with dolls in another circumstance), but rather with the individual in relation to the wider cultural (peer) context that in this case says that seven-yearold boys should not play with dolls. Contextual barriers add another layer of complexity to the development of acceptance. They might be best ameliorated through addressing acceptance in both the classroom and school community. Promoting acceptance at the classroom and community level might be best done through eliminating the multicultural barriers to acceptance as discussed above. The other parallel strategy is addressing acceptance in individuals. This means fostering self-esteem in students that is robust enough to allow them to lead a community rather than follow. For example, a student from a minority cultural background may wish to wear clothing that reflects that background to school despite the fact that this will make the student stand out against her peers. Despite standing out in this way a student with strong self-esteem attending a school that promotes tolerance may be willing to proceed with wearing the different clothes regardless of what might be said by peers. This act makes her a leader and change agent whether that is the intent or an unintended consequence. With respect to Australian students, Thomas and Witenberg (2004) remarked that “It is evident that pre-adolescents are able to understand about tolerance and intolerance, and that they reject intolerance vigorously” (p. 6). They go on to say that this rejection of intolerance should be harnessed, and that …education aimed at promoting tolerance may need to focus more on developing socio-cognitive skills which enables people to consciously assess and reject their own and others prejudiced beliefs; de-emphasizing the racial characteristics of people; and, especially for young males, developing the ability to empathize with others and to understand the potential harm that intolerance causes. (p. 6) An emphasis, then, on developing an individual’s own sense of right and wrong with respect to acceptance, and a willingness to act on their beliefs, is important. Students can and do show individual leadership in situations where principles are at stake, and it should not be assumed that they will necessarily defer to the perceptions of a wider group, such as peers, where their beliefs do not align with that group. 81

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

A community of acceptance provides the context in which the other elements of a loving pedagogy such as intimacy, bonding, sacrifice, kindness, forgiveness, and empathy can flourish. The context influences, for example, the ease in which intimate relationships can develop, and similarly the quality and nature of such relationships has an impact on the classroom community. This circular relationship can be said to be true of the other elements of a loving pedagogy with reference to community and acceptance. But how does this all come together in practice? The next chapter provides a case study example of loving pedagogy being practiced in a Canadian classroom. The hope is that it serves as a model, example, and inspiration to those wanting to implement love as pedagogy in their own classroom.

82

CHAPTER 6

LOVE IN ACTION A Case Study

To this point this book has focussed on the selected main elements of a loving pedagogy including kindness, empathy, intimacy, bonding, sacrifice, forgiveness, community, and acceptance. Each chapter has started with a theoretical discussion followed by ideas on translating theory to practice. Nevertheless it might still be hard for some readers to fully visualise what loving pedagogy entails when faced with the pragmatics of real classrooms in real schools. This chapter presents a case study of loving pedagogy through information gleaned from research data. The intent is to as much as possible allow the included photos and quotes speak for themselves. This study focuses on one child in one school, but hopefully educators of students of all ages will see possibilities relevant to their own situations. This study was undertaken by a team of researchers, including myself, investigating inclusive practice in a rural school in Alberta, Canada with the initial purpose of documenting the inclusive experience of a boy in Grade One with what was regarded as a significant cognitive impairment. Jake was diagnosed from a young age with foetal narcotic syndrome, developmental delay, and a reactive attachment disorder. At the age of two he was removed from his mother’s care due to ongoing substance abuse problems and from that time on he lived with his grandmother. As a result of his earlier neglect and his disability, by the time Jake came to live with his grandmother he had hit very few physical, cognitive, and social-emotional developmental milestones typical for a two-year-old. Up until a few months before this case study was conducted he was prone to tantrums and other outbursts. In many areas of Alberta students like Jake might be educated in non-inclusive settings, however, Jake lived in a school jurisdiction that embraced inclusion and offered no other alternative. We spent three days at the school taking over 800 photographs, conducting structured classroom observations, and interviewing Jake, school and district staff, Jake’s grandmother, and peers. This information was sorted into themes using qualitative data analysis techniques. We expected to find information about inclusive practice, and we did. However, our data showed more than that. It showed us that fundamentally inclusion done well is about love. Jake and his classmates experienced love as pedagogy, and our encounter with this experience is documented in the remainder of this chapter. Jake’s school was located in small-town in rural Alberta, Canada, 70 kilometres from a large urban centre. The main sources of employment in the area are based in the agricultural, forestry, and oil industries. Jake’s Kindergarten to Grade Six public school of approximately 100 children had a principal, six teachers, and eight support 83

CHAPTER 6

staff, although not all of these staff were full-time and classroom based (for example, some teachers and classroom assistants job-shared part-time). The school vision statement noted that the school endeavoured to: – Create a positive environment. Through teamwork promote a safe, loving atmosphere that secures wellness for everyone. – Motivate learning. Use innovative ways to promote growth, learning and achievement among students and staff. – Cultivate parents and community involvement. Encourage two-way communication and cooperation with parents, staff and students. – Include all learners. Create inclusion with the collaboration of parents, students and staff. – Encourage organized, independent learners. Enable students to be risk-takers, to do their best to become successful. THEME ONE: EMPATHY AND KINDNESS

High levels of empathy and kindness were evident throughout the school, between students and peers of all ages, and between staff and students. The school clearly articulated a desire to promote a feeling of ‘family’ in the school, and this was seen in the interactions between members of the school community. Seeing Jake playing alone a Grade Six girl came and carried him over to the hurdle activity in the background (Figure 6.1). This sort of cross-age interaction, where older students took

Figure 6.1. Jake and a grade six girl. 84

LOVE IN ACTION

responsibility for helping with the younger students through kind acts, was commonplace. A teacher assistant remarked that “We’re just a small little school but everybody knows each other, and we’re all family and we’re all working toward…doing the best for kids.” This idea of family extended to the entire school community. In the words of another staff member “We are all like a family. It’s like a family here, like, good feelings, you know?” The issue of kindness was further evident in that, according to the principal, it formed the whole basis for interactions between all members of the school community. She said “Our school rule, we have one school rule, and it’s just be nice. And that’s the foundation; we all have to be nice to each other. We’re all important, we’re all here for the same reason, which is to learn and to have fun, and so we need to assist each other on that path.” During recess Jake tried to unsuccessfully scale the soccer goal (Figure 6.2). After a short time he was assisted by a peer. This act was symbolic of a wider atmosphere of concern and empathy. Jake’s classmates were aware of his challenges, and had developed empathy for him. His teacher remarked “You see that growth in character in the other kids in being able to accept…. Like now he’s just another one of their buddies. I feel that they look at him as more of a little brother to, you know, protect. And they’ll say, ‘Oh, look what Jake did. That was so cute that he did that’.” Another teacher remarked that part of this empathy was recognising Jake’s strengths. She said “Most of the children in the school really love Jake because he’s a lovable boy. He’s one of those puzzles to them because they see how smart he is.

Figure 6.2. The boost. 85

CHAPTER 6

They see how tremendous he is with his memory. You know…it’s like a photographic memory, and so they see that, and they marvel over that. But they also marvel over, he can’t talk that well. You know, so he’s a puzzle. They wonder, and yet they treat him so well.” Jake’s grandmother added “I mean, we’re very openly affectionate in this house. That’s why I like what they are doing at the school because I believe showing empathy or real feelings is important. If someone hurts himself, you should be going, ‘Are you okay? Can I help you?’ not a ‘Ha-ha you hurt yourself, that’s funny’.” In Figure 6.3 Jake was having difficulty choosing his musical instrument so the children sitting around him came to help while the rest of the class waited patiently. According to his teacher this was an expectation because “…every student is responsible for themselves as well as for everyone around them.” Another teacher agreed that kindness and empathy are more than encouraged at the school, they are required. She said that “…there was one that was just really hard on Jake at the beginning of the year and yet he comes from a background where he should have understood. But for him it was making him feel better to be mean to Jake, right? So [you get past this] by dealing with these things individually. Of course, you’re modelling, but you’re dealing with each situation individually and saying, ‘Okay, I need to have a little conversation with you right now.’ And so we go and have a conversation, and then we revisit it, and how is it working? That’s happening all over the school.” These sorts of character traits leading to kindness and empathy were formally taught

Figure 6.3. Music class. 86

LOVE IN ACTION

and recognized, and positive steps were taken towards infusing these sorts of traits and behaviours into the daily functioning of the school. According to the principal “...every child throughout the year will be recognized formally with a certificate in front of the entire school for something that they excel at. Lots of times it’s tied with virtues...kindness, trust, generosity.” THEME TWO: INTIMACY AND BONDING

According to Rinaldi (2006), teaching is an act of love, and Figure 6.4 in which the teacher assistant, Jake, and another student shared a casual intimate encounter in the normal course of daily interaction demonstrates how instruction and intimacy are not mutually exclusive. According to this teacher assistant “At school here we the staff feel the freedom just to be kind and gentle with kids and hug their ‘booboos’ (injuries) and kids who are needy and sensitive. I think it is just so easy to love them and, oh, I just love the kids I work with. Like I treat them as I would treat my own children and my own grandchildren, and yeah, and I know that they respond. I know that they feel loved and I feel loved in return. So I think that’s important.” His teacher supported this view, remarking that “…we’ve made sure to say, in our own way, that we love him. Like I say it verbally, ‘Jake, I love you.’ And he’ll say. ‘I love you.’ And he’ll, you know, hold my hand as we’re going out of the gym…”

Figure 6.4. Everyday intimacy.

87

CHAPTER 6

Far from being inappropriate, these intimate interactions between staff and children who feel love and affection for one another are important to developing the sorts of relationships that can foster real learning. In the words of the teacher assistant “I call it a womb, for a lot of children. It’s such a good start and it’s such a healthy atmosphere, it’s such a positive atmosphere it’s just, it’s actually one of the best schools in our whole area.” Far from feeling ‘child panic’ at touching children, the staff at the school, both male and female, are comfortable with touch and appropriate, human types of affection (see Figure 6.5). The school secretary remarked of Jake that “…sometimes I sit with him in the gym or sit next to him. And so, yeah, he, he’ll cuddle up and hold your hand, different things like that, where I said before, no, it wouldn’t have happened.” This approach is explicit and known to the wider school community. Jake’s Grandmother said “I’m a high-praiser. I maybe go above and beyond a call of duty on that one, but so does the school. They believe in hugs. They believe in touch, which I think is extremely important for the development of children. This garbage about pervert teachers, excuse me, that’s a label. There are some super, super teachers out there. They are mothers and grandmothers, and dads and grandpas, you know…. I mean, if I need a hug I can just go and I can just walk up to [the principal] and get a hug, and it’s okay.” The sort of bonding resulting from this intentionally intimate approach to relationships is strong and long-term. The principal remarked that “We had a really special

Figure 6.5. Everyday intimacy II. 88

LOVE IN ACTION

boy in our school and he’s in grade seven now so he’s gone to a larger school and that was a really, really difficult time is that transition and ensuring that transition would be smooth. And I have this mother instinct like, oh those new people aren’t going to care for him the way we cared for him and how is he going to survive and seeing that he’s making it in junior high and seeing that it’s going to be okay.” This intimate approach paid dividends with respect to the emotional health of Jake, and indeed his progress could be viewed as astounding. Consider the following dialogue with a staff member: “Well, in reading a lot of Jake’s background he was malnourished as a child and…he grew up in a car seat and that’s why his head was misshapen and it’s believed by many that…in all probability…the only response and stimulation he got was from a mirror in a car. And so he was his own friend. He would see himself in mirrors when we worked together with him. And he was happy with himself. He didn’t want people, he didn’t want us to touch him. We couldn’t hug him, we couldn’t touch him, he wouldn’t look at us in our faces, he would scream and holler and cry, and he had such a difficult time eating because he had been malnourished for so long. And so all those basics were not his to begin with and all he knew of a face or a person was what he would see in a reflection. So often times we had to use cover papers. Some of the things are still covered, the computers are covered, some of them are covered in our classroom. The microwave is covered with a piece of paper, and slowly we’ve been trying to wean him out of that kind of stimulation. Sometimes he still plays by himself in a mirror. Just flies through the air or hops and watches himself. But oh my goodness, all of that has come so far. And now he’s huggable, he’s lovable, he looks at us and he’s becoming very social with children and adults. It’s so amazing. The last two months with adults, this is just all due to him, he goes up and introduces himself and says ‘It’s so nice to meet you’. And you might have noticed this morning he wasn’t afraid of adults. Where before he was afraid of adults, he was afraid of anything that was changing and anybody that came into our room that was different. He was afraid of noises, he was afraid of assemblies and large groups of people. So, my goodness, Jake has come a long way. [I think what made that possible is] having him be part of the programs, the school, people who loved him and just stuck with him. And people who just grew with him and taught him…. I think a lot of love, you know? A lot of kindness [and] time.” The staff at the school were cognisant of the fact that their approach led to bonding. Jake’s teacher remarked that “…with this class I found it extremely rewarding just…seeing a little boy who’s distant and doesn’t want to have anything to do with the outside world around him, see him come out and really love the people around him and being able to become attached.” She also mentioned that “…you probably observed that he is quite affectionate. He likes to be hugged. He likes to hold your hand and show you things and he appreciates the attention we do give him now and craves it and wants more attention. So that’s I think a very positive change that we’ve seen in Jake.” Further, the principal added that “…the relationships that are built within this school [are] phenomenal whether that be staff, staff to staff, or with students, or with parents, there’s strong, strong relationships and bonds.” 89

CHAPTER 6

Figure 6.6. Intimacy with a peer.

The intimacy and bonding in the school extended to relationships between students. Lara (in purple in Figure 6.6 above) reminisced about how she and Jake “… always play butterflies on the swings” as we made our way down to the flower garden, one of Jake and Lara’s favorite areas in the school. They asked if I would take their picture and assumed the pose in Figure 6.6 unprompted. According to one of the teachers this was a school-wide phenomenon that came about as a result of deliberate school practices. She said that “…the kids know each other from the playground. They know each other from family groupings, they know each other from the assembly. They meet each other in the hall. You just see love growing, and… I am just so proud…I’m proud of [our principal] for focusing very much on that, and she is a very nice lady, right? And she knows how to work with kids.” THEME THREE: SACRIFICE AND FORGIVENESS

Virtues, including the need to be understanding for the situations of others and to be forgiving, are an explicit part of the school’s way of operating. These vitues are formally taught and students are reminded of them both through the conduct of school staff, and also in context, for example, during times of peer conflict. On the topic of a forgiving approach to working with students the principal said “It’s frustrating sometimes because…when you have a behaviour child that you’re worried about harming someone [there is] just no easy reassurance that we’re doing the right thing…. It’s very easy to go home at night and think ‘It would be so much 90

LOVE IN ACTION

easier if this little boy wasn’t in my room or this little girl wasn’t here’. And so being able to go back and think that through. No, this is our job and this is our purpose, but it’s not just a happy time all the time.” This forgiving attitude extends even to the bus ride home. A driver commented that it is good “…to know that they respect you even though we have some differences once in a while that I have to discipline them [about], but after that we are good friends again...” Student-staff relationships were not the only ones where forgiveness was seen as important. It also extended to staff-parent relationships. One staff member commented on the need to take a different perspective when it came to developing the sorts of understandings that forgiveness is based on. She said of parents that “Some of them can be challenging, and even tiring sometimes. But, I think all them want the same thing. Everybody does, and you’re always concerned about your child and you have to think about that and go, ‘Well if it was my child, I’d be doing the same’ and look at it from that perspective.” Parents were also encouraged to forgive when they experience problems at the school, but this was not always a simple task. The principal commented that “The most important thing to parents is their child, and if they feel their child isn’t being treated fairly they get angry. And being able to understand and listen to what they’re saying is a huge challenge. Being able to help them and get them to see past their anger as to looking for a solution instead of just being angry is the biggest challenge.” Sacrificing for others was also infused into the school culture and involved school staff at all levels. Many staff operated outside of their formal job descriptions in order to provide a better environment for all. One student said of the school secretary that “We like her because she helps us when we are hurt.” The secretary took on duties not ordinarily assigned to her because she was kind, and because it simply helped with the school operation. She said, only half-jokingly, “I’m the nurse as well...I clean everything up from blood to puke to everything.” School staff also made significant daily sacrifices of their time. Most staff, including teachers and support staff such as teacher assistants and the school secretary, commented on long days preparing for their roles and also meeting other commitments related to their jobs. One teacher remarked that “Teaching is a hard job and it’s not 9 to 3:30. For me it’s been 9 to 10:30…for years. It’s a hard job and you don’t find people sometimes that want to do that. It is not an easy job. You cannot just leave the classroom at 3:30 and expect to come into the classroom the next day and be ready…” This sort of sacrifice was a part of the school culture. According to a staff member “If I’m not willing to put in that extra time…why should anybody else? And I think the teachers, all the staff here, are that way…they don’t mind doing the extra…. I’ve worked in other places, so I know that [it can be an] out the door at 4 o’clock and don’t look back kind of thing. You can’t do that here. And I don’t think anybody does.” THEME FOUR: COMMUNITY AND ACCEPTANCE

One of the clearest themes in the data was the strong sense of community and of accepting all in the school. The notion of the school as being like a family has 91

CHAPTER 6

already been addressed in the discussion on kindness and empathy, but it also has fairly obvious links to the issue of community and acceptance. Love as pedagogy, when done well, is an interconnection of the different elements discussed in this text. The school secretary commented on the depth of the school community, a community that spanned generations. “It’s a family. It’s a big family…. I’m second generation. My daughter is third generation going to this school. And I grew up in the area. I’ve moved back to the area so that my daughter could attend here. It’s very important to me and it’s like I say, it’s a community, it’s a family. Everybody kind of watches out for everybody else’s kids and you tend to mother them all.” Another staff member added that “…the community is great. A community that’s four generations of people in many instances. Kids with kids with kids coming back. We are getting the area’s [kids] again because it was such a good place, a wholesome place to be. You are not a number…. You are somebody special.” Jake’s grandmother said “…they include every single one of those kids, and this is the [school] family. Okay? [The principal] is mom, dad, and anybody else you want. And the rest are aunts and uncles or whatever. But, this is our family. And we don’t just care about the kids in my class; we care about the whole family. And that’s how they operate. Everybody takes care of everybody. You help everybody. It’s just that environment, and learning experiences that’s super for the kids.” Like all communities, the classroom and school community represented a complex network of relationships between peers, staff and students, staff and each other, and the wider school community of parents and others with the other groups. Community and acceptance were emphasised with the students and, as with other school ‘virtues’, were explicitly taught. The principal explained that “It’s one of the most important things I think is that we’re teaching kids how we expect them to behave. Kids can be successful if they know what is expected of them. And so we’re saying this is what we want you to be like. This is how a good citizen acts. This is how a good citizen behaves. What are some things we can do as a school? What are some things you can do as an individual to demonstrate those behaviours? Some of those behaviours, they all tie back to that school rule, just be nice. And so all of our values and virtues tie into that and ensure that we treat everyone with respect whether it’s Jake with special needs or…a teacher in our school. That everyone is valued enough to be treated the same. And for the staff, the more we dove into citizenship and virtues and values, the nicer our staff became to each other and to kids.” The end result of this, according to the principal, was that “We think we’ve become more loving of our students.” Jake’s teacher supported this view, commenting that “I think the other children in the class are actually getting more in terms of character building, knowing how to communicate and understand these people who are part of our community and should be treated as members of our community.” While behaviour relating to community and acceptance was explicitly taught, this does not necessarily ensure that a cohesive community is developed. Members of a community need to be motivated to be together, they need to bond and enjoy being with one another. This was the fundamental basis of the community at the school. Jake’s teacher said that “…we like to be with each other. Everyone comes and eats lunch together. It’s not Kindergarten’s in with the Kindergarten’s, Grade 92

LOVE IN ACTION

Ones with Grade Ones, Grade Twos with Grade Twos, to Grade Six. If you go on the playground you see kids of different ages playing with each other. And that’s completely normal and fine. [It’s an] all for one, one for all kind of a mentality I think.” This mentality was modelled by school staff, with another staff member remarking that “…we all take care of kids. It doesn’t matter if we are Grade Five or Six teachers.” The principal’s view was that “…you walk in the doors and you can feel what [the] school is about, I believe. And it’s about warmth and happiness and caring for kids. People greet you at the door. Visually it’s very appealing and everyone, you walk through the hallways and you hear kids laughing. You see staff smiling. Everyone is greeting each other. And teaching and modelling how to interact as a friendly group of people together. The climate really is one of the best assets of [the] school.” Some of this social cohesion can be put down to the close relationship between staff at the school. According to a staff member “There are people here that are sensitive to everybody’s needs. Everybody cares about each other. And bottom line we have fun together.” One of Jake’s teachers added that “I would say we have a very close staff…[the principal] consistently has been with us for seven years [and] she cares a lot about people and is very aware of what our needs are. She’s always striving to make things better for us....It’s an optimum staff and those don’t come around quickly, right? It’s a staff of closeness. Really, we all trust. That’s our virtue this month, but it’s a trust that is built over seven years. I’d trust [the principal]

Figure 6.7. Looking at a bug. 93

CHAPTER 6

Figure 6.8. Taking his turn.

Figure 6.9. Valued by peers. 94

LOVE IN ACTION

with my life, and yet, we’ve had differences.” The qualities of the staff at the school were recognised by Jake’s grandmother who said “Personally, I believe it has a lot to do with the people themselves. Okay? Now [the principal], I am sure that if she could take every child home, she would. Okay? And I believe it’s got a lot to do with her morals and values and her personal feelings…and the other teachers are like that, too. Like [my granddaughter] has Mr. M., and he’s the only man teacher in that school but he’s super with all the other kids. Even Jake is learning how to play soccer. Not in his class, but when he goes outside. All kids come over and he teaches all the kids…. To me it’s just an extended part of my family and I trust them implicitly with my children.” The community, then, is held together by explicit teaching of citizenship, feelings of trust, enjoyment of one-another’s company, caring for others, staff cohesion, and staff taking responsibility for all children. It is also based on the acceptance of all, regardless of individual differences. Figures 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 all show Jake being included and fully accepted into the classroom community. In Figure 6.7 he shares an informal interaction at his desk over a bug. In Figure 6.8 he takes his turn solving a problem at the board in front of the class like any other child. In Figure 6.9 Jake’s book report has aroused the interest of some of his peers, showing how his contributions to the class are valued by other children. He is part of the learning community. His teacher explains with respect to children with special needs that “In our school, it’s not, ‘Well I guess we’re going to have to live with these people so we better get used to it.’ It’s, ‘they’re valuable and they have talents and special things that they can give to the world and teach us, teach us more, teach us as much as we can teach them’.” This goes further than tolerance, demonstrating acceptance. The secretary comments on the success of the inclusive approach. “I came from the era where we still had separate resource rooms and things like that and I didn’t like it when I was a kid. I didn’t like that separation because I felt it just put a target on them. And in this school, no, they’re accepted and loved.” This acceptance extends to the wider school community, and contexts where the community can come together and celebrate the success of all are made available. The principal mentioned that “We have monthly assemblies and Jake will get up and he’ll be performing and parents and kids alike will laugh and clap and love to see every child being successful on stage. So they support that way. They support our special needs students the way they support us all. Whether it’s by helping us with hot lunch or coming to do special performances…our community rises to the challenge…of loving and accepting kids.” DISCUSSION

While this case study for the most part speaks for itself, there are a few points that might benefit from further comment. First, there is a degree of courage evident in the school staff ’s affectionate approach to working with children, defying popular notions of maintaining emotional and physical distance from students as the result of sensitivities around accusations of paedophilia. As Jake’s grandmother pointed out, his teachers were not ‘perverts’. They were people who cared deeply about children, parents and grandparents themselves, who regarded touch and affection as 95

CHAPTER 6

one way of reaching and connecting with students. The environment was a secure one. Bright, wide open physical spaces in which multiple adults came and went on frequent and unannounced bases. Children were not at risk in this environment, they were safer. Safer because they were emotionally connected to the staff they interacted with every day; well-intentioned staff who would go the extra mile to ensure their safety, security, and well-being. This says something about the hiring policies of the district and school who took care to ensure that the teaching staff were properly screened and philosophically aligned with the educational contexts in which they worked. It also says something about the teaching profession. The teaching profession is a caring one, in general populated by people who want to make a positive difference in the lives of children. Occasionally those with nefarious motives do find their way into classrooms, but the rarity of occurrences of tragic and criminal sexual or violent behaviour by educators suggests that numbers of these people in school systems are in the extreme minority. Further, if such people were to find themselves in a dynamic and close-knit community such as Jake’s school it is not hard to imagine that such ugly predilections might be quickly uncovered and dealt with accordingly before any opportunity to cause harm arose. A teacher commented that Jake was a ‘loveable boy’. This might beg the question “What happens to students who are not so loveable?” The answer is that at Jake’s school love was offered unconditionally to all students. The vision statement advocating full inclusion in a loving environment was taken seriously, and all students were regarded as loveable. It might be imagined that when a younger Jake was having tantrums and violent outbursts at school he might not have been viewed as quite so loveable, but the school community saw past that. They saw a boy with potential and value, worthy of love, effort, and nurturing. This was the perspective they took with Jake, and comments made by school staff about the emphasis on loving all children leave little room for doubt that this love was extended to all students regardless of their needs. The issue of sacrifice is a contentious one. Many teachers are unwilling or unable to put in the sorts of hours or make the sorts of sacrifices made by the teachers and staff at Jake’s school. This does not mean, however, that these teachers do not sacrifice. As discussed in Chapter Four, sacrifice comes in many forms and can involve small daily sacrifices along with larger, less frequent sacrifices. Many illustrations of sacrifice not involving working harder or longer hours can be found, such as, for example, a willingness to advocate for students or to go out of one’s way in the course of daily work in order to provide a student with extra comfort or help. Finally, the idea that the loving school atmosphere was promoted in a deliberate way is worthy of comment. While members of the school community might have been naturally inclined towards a loving approach, it was not assumed that this would happen on its own. Jake’s school, along with other schools in the local area, deliberately and methodically taught a school-wide program of ‘virtues’ which was compatible with other ways in which the school operated. These virtues, loosely based on the work of Borba (2002) and modified and extended considerably, emphasised personal responsibility, caring for others, values, and the development of personal morals. At different points in the school year the larger school community 96

LOVE IN ACTION

along with individual classes address Borba’s seven virtues of empathy, conscience, self-control, respect, kindness, tolerance and fairness. The school community, then, was pro-active in ensuring that all members of the school community not only heard a consistent message, but also had opportunities to learn and reflect on their own values and those of the community in which they participated and lived. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The use of a loving pedagogy at this school was both deliberate and organic. It was deliberate in the sense that the school community was cognizant of the approach, and explicit in teaching and working in ways that promoted it. It was also, however, in some respects organic in that it grew and developed naturally over the years and took the local context into account, with a solid foundation of support in the local and parent community. The mix of positive leadership, shared values, staff cohesion, an inclusive philosophy, community building, community and home support, and the right ‘mix’ of people with common views and objectives all seemed to contribute to the successful implementation of loving pedagogy. This study shows us that it is possible to be loving and affectionate in an educational context while still being able to ensure student safety and well-being in a world that is increasingly becoming less loving, less kind, less empathetic, less willing to sacrifice and forgive, often lacking in community spirit and demonstrating only superficial acceptance of difference. Perhaps the final word on this case study, illustrating the progress Jake made, should go to his grandmother. She said “If you looked into Jake’s eyes, you knew somebody was inside there. I did not know how to bring him out. I taught him everything I could. The school found a way to unlock that little door and let this little person sneak through. Once he snuck through, and he started realizing that he could do all these things, oh my Lord, go, go, go, go. Never once has he taken steps back. Every single day Jake takes steps forward. He learns something. He now talks. It’s taken five years to get him to talk. Somehow, being schooled, and all this, Jake has learned to deal with emotions, and new things like that. I don’t know how they did it but I believe very strongly that the other kids in this classroom, and the school environment, were a big help to him.” NOTES

This case study was conducted as part of a research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The significant contribution of my friends and research partners Judy Lupart (U. of Alberta), Donna McGhie-Richmond (U. of Victoria), Kathy Hickey, Rob McGarva, Angie Irvine, Jennifer Barber, and Margaret Thompson is gratefully acknowledged.

97

CHAPTER 7

INFUSING LOVE INTO DAILY PEDAGOGY

This book has provided the rationale and justification for the use of a selection of elements that lead classroom teachers towards a pedagogy of love. These include the development of kindness and empathy, intimacy and bonding, sacrifice and forgiveness, and community and acceptance in the teaching and learning relationship. In each chapter practical suggestions, theorised and adapted from a basis of research and literature, have been offered on how to infuse the various elements into classrooms and schools. The preceding chapter drew the links between theory and a reallife example of loving pedagogy at work in a school. This final chapter examines the pragmatics of how educators can plan to adopt a loving pedagogy into daily teaching and learning activities, and also monitor the extent to which personal practice matches personal expectations. DAILY PLANNING FOR A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE

Most good teachers plan instruction meticulously, while at the same time being aware of the need to be responsive to teachable moments and other variations to schedules and learning events that occur in the course of a normal school day. It is always a good idea to embark on a lesson in any area with a well considered plan, and the same can be said when it comes to adopting a loving approach to teaching. Especially at the outset, educators need to plan to concentrate on the various elements of a loving pedagogy so that eventually it becomes less a conscious approach, and more an intuitive and natural one. There are simply too many elements to the definition of love used in this book, and they are simply too complex, for a teacher to be able to effectively implement each element all at the one time, at least initially. Therefore, it might make more sense to focus on the elements one or two at a time, and to build this into daily teaching plans. This is not to say that the other elements of a loving pedagogy are ignored on a specific day simply because they are not the focal point, but rather the area chosen for concentration is at the forefront of the teacher’s consciousness. Doing this would ensure that most if not all elements of a loving pedagogy are incorporated into regular teaching on a weekly basis. As an example, a teachers’ weekly plan for the implementation of a loving pedagogy might look like that described in Table 7.1 below. Deliberate planning of this type provides a concrete structure that, once internalized, can be helpful to those who want to approach a loving pedagogy from a more natural and holistic perspective in the long-term. Imposing structure of this sort can be compatible with the natural ebb and flow of the classroom, and indeed for many teachers the focus that such organization provides can be helpful as they 99

CHAPTER 7

Table 7.1. Weekly plan involving love as pedagogy Monday

Thursday

Friday

Phys Ed English LA Phys Ed Math Math 10.30– 11.45am Music Science Schoolyard supervision Lunch Social Studies Science Art 1pm– 2.15pm

Math Science Phys Ed Health

Art English LA Math

English LA

Social

2.30pm– Science 3.30pm Kindness Daily focus

English LA 9am– 10.15am

Daily love activity

Lead students in generating a kindness list of altruistic events they have noticed. Post list on classroom door. (10 mins)

Tuesday

Wednesday

English LA

Science

Math

Social Stud.

Music

Phys Ed

Empathy

Intimacy & bonding

Sacrifice & forgiveness

Comm. & accept.

With students reflect on interaction with their Grade 6 ‘reading buddies’. What have they learned and appreciated about their older ‘buddy’? (10 mins)

Reflect. Do students regard me as a ‘safe haven’ for interaction? Who does and who does not? How do I know this? Do I need to change my behaviour?

Find some time for 1:1 teacher interaction with Student X who is having difficulties at home. Possibly recess or part of lunch. Also, ensure this student’s friends are aware of the need to be supportive and spend extra time with this student this week (15 mins)

Use mixed ability groupings during social studies class. Assign different group roles to students, and point out the different contribution each individual is making. (45 mins during SS class)

move towards a greater infusion of loving pedagogy in the classroom. Table 7.1 does not list the activities that will occur during each of the planned subject area lessons. It is assumed that teachers fill in a brief description of each lesson in a weekly plan such as this, often followed by more detailed lesson plans for each segment of the day, even if these plans are relatively brief and concise. The inclusion of the ‘love as pedagogy’ area of concentration and activity in the weekly plan provides direction for the inclusion of that activity in the specific lesson plans at some point during the day. Also, it should be noted that Table 7.1 separates kindness 100

INFUSING LOVE INTO DAILY PEDAGOGY

and empathy but combines the other chapter areas in order to produce a five-day cycle. This is arbitrary. Each area could be divided into a single unit by also separating intimacy, bonding, sacrifice, forgiveness, community, and acceptance on an eight-day rotation, or other combinations could be used at the discretion of the teacher in order to produce whatever weekly cycle is desired. The point is to have a specific focal point on an aspect of love as pedagogy each day; what that looks like is best left to individual educators taking into account their own context and needs. This book has throughout emphasized the need for teamwork and collegiality in implementing a loving pedagogy, and given this more can be said about daily planning for a pedagogy of love as it relates to the whole school community rather than only individual classrooms. Schools adopting a common purpose with respect to implementing a loving pedagogy can engage in school-wide planned activities aimed at promoting loving pedagogy. These activities can be cross-age and can involve all staff and the wider school community, including parents and other family members. One way of implementing these activities builds on the suggestion for classroom practice above. A school theme would be chosen, perhaps on a weekly rotational basis, that emphasized one of the aspects of a loving pedagogy. Wholeschool activities could be designed to help the school community to learn about and promote that area. As an example, at School A the theme for the first week in November might be ‘empathy’. The first 15 minutes of each school day would be spent on activities aimed at engendering empathy on a school-wide basis as can be seen in Table 7.2. The activity on Friday would be longer and would bring the events of the week to a strong conclusion. School staff, students, and community volunteers could take turns in planning each week throughout the year, spreading out the workload and also contributing to teamwork within the school. Displays concerning the theme for the week could be constructed in the school halls on notice boards in order to raise the profile of the weekly theme. This school-wide approach combined with daily work in individual classrooms would not only set a positive tone throughout the school, but would also likely color individual interactions amongst the school community. SELF MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF LOVE AS PEDAGOGY THROUGH REFLECTIVE PRACTIVE

In many ways planning to infuse a loving pedagogy and implementing these plans in daily practice is the easy part. Assessment of progress might be more challenging. How is a teacher to know if progress has been made and if, in actuality, love is more evident in the school and classroom than previously? The current emphasis on teacher reflective practice offers a non-threatening way to self-evaluate progress in this area through gathering data from a number of sources. Some of these means of self-evaluation are more time consuming than others but have the potential to lead to a deeper understanding of the situation. Other methods of reflection are relatively quick and easy to be done in a few minutes at the end of each week. 101

CHAPTER 7

Table 7.2. Plan for empathy week at School A School A: Empathy Week Monday (15 mins.) Cross-age empathy. Older grades work on hands-on math ‘problem solving’ with younger grades.

Tuesday (15 mins.) Cross-gender empathy. Outdoor cooperative physical education games in mixed-gender pairs.

Wednesday (15 mins.)

Thursday (15 mins.)

Friday (30 mins.)

Crossgeneration empathy. One grandparent or other senior per class attends to relate stories of school life from their own childhood.

Crosscultural empathy. Teachers in each grade read ageappropriate stories about the experience of a migrant family.

‘Ways we show empathy’. Classes combine at weekly assembly to brainstorm a list of ways to show empathy and why it is important based on experiences of the week.

What is Reflective Practice? Reflective practitioners are those educators who know not only what they are doing but also the reasons for deciding to do what they are doing (Parsons & Brown, 2002). A further aspect of reflection comes after the teaching and learning event where the impact of that event is considered. Parsons and Brown recommend a systematic approach to reflection, one that uses action research as a basis for improving practice. This means that educators might benefit from a planned approach to reflection that employs a range of tools in order to self-research (or research collaboratively with colleagues) their own practice. Tools for Reflection Various means exist to assist teachers to reflect on their own classroom practice. A few that might be helpful in providing information on the extent to which a loving pedagogy is evident in a classroom include the examples briefly outlined below: the use of two self-reporting scales developed specifically to address the ideas outlined in this book; reflective diaries; student feedback; and feedback from colleagues. It is important to note that no single tool for reflection will answer the question “How do I know if progress has been made and if, in actuality, love is more evident in my school and classroom than previously?” Rather, information gathered from multiple sources can be compared to check for consistency and to add depth and breadth to the self-evaluative process. The loving pedagogy scales: A quick and easy tool for aiding reflection on progress. The two scales presented in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 are based on aspects of the various elements of a loving pedagogy presented in this book. These scales have been 102

INFUSING LOVE INTO DAILY PEDAGOGY

Table 7.3. The loving pedagogy scale – individual reflection (LPS-IR) Loving action Kindness and Empathy I have engaged in kind acts in the context of my teaching over the past (fill in time period)………… I set specific ‘kindness goal/s’ for myself. I made concrete progress on attaining my kindness goal/s. If I did not achieve my kindness goal I have taken steps to address the barriers to that achievement I have attempted to see the perspective of others through play, listening, and offering options. I have intentionally focussed energies and spent extended time with individuals or small groups of students in order to foster empathy. Intimacy and Bonding I developed an intimate emotional connection with a student or group of students. I made specific efforts to form an affectional bond with a student or students and can cite the strategy used. I was an advocate for my students. I tried to get to know my students better. I invited and took notice of feedback from students on my own teaching and progress in promoting a loving classroom. I engaged in an active student-teacher learning partnership by working alongside students. Sacrifice and Forgiveness I made a judicious active or passive major sacrifice for my students. I made judicious active or passive daily sacrifices for my students. I found a better alternative to making a sacrifice that achieved the same end. I asked for, and received, forgiveness. Community and Acceptance I made a specific contribution to the framework on which classroom community is built. I made a specific contribution to the fostering individual relationships in the classroom. I made a specific contribution to building social cohesion in the classroom I made a specific contribution to allowing community control over appropriate areas of the classroom.

Self-rating NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE NIE NIE

INC INC INC

CON CON CON

NA NA NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE NIE NIE

INC INC INC

CON CON CON

NA NA NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

* NIE = Not in evidence; INC = Inconsistent; CON = Consistent; NA = Not applicable. 103

CHAPTER 7

Table 7.4. The loving pedagogy scale – classroom implementation (LPS-CI) Loving action Kindness and Empathy Colleagues partnered with me and/or each other to adopt a kind approach to their work. Students partnered with me and/or each other in adopting a kind approach towards others. Students took the lead in promoting kindness in the classroom. The class participated in specific activities (such as Community of Inquiry) aimed at empathy development. Intimacy and Bonding Students are behaving in appropriately intimate ways with one another. A student viewed me as a ‘safe haven’ or ‘secure base’. In my classroom some of Roland & Lawhon’s (1994) strategies for promoting intimacy characteristics were used. Sacrifice and Forgiveness Students are making healthy sacrifices for one another. Students forgave one another, working through a process aimed at reaching reconciliation. The class engaged in specific learning activities that foster commitment to others. Community and Acceptance Diversity is valued in the classroom. The class has engaged in specific activities aimed at dismantling multicultural barriers to acceptance. The class has engaged in specific activities aimed at dismantling contact barriers to acceptance The class has engaged in specific activities aimed at dismantling contextual barriers to acceptance

Self-rating NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE NIE

INC INC

CON CON

NA NA

NIE NIE

INC INC

CON CON

NA NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE NIE

INC INC

CON CON

NA NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

NIE

INC

CON

NA

* NIE = Not in evidence; INC = Inconsistent; CON = Consistent; NA = Not applicable.

specifically designed to provide educators with a firm basis for understanding their implementation of a loving pedagogy. The first, known as the Loving Pedagogy Scale – Individual Reflection (LPS-IR) is a tool developed to assist classroom-based educators to quickly reflect on their role in implementing a loving pedagogy. The second scale, known as the Loving Pedagogy Scale - Classroom Implementation (LPS-CI), is designed to assist a teacher in evaluating the extent to which a loving pedagogy is in evidence in a specific classroom context. Both scales are deliberately brief in order to encourage their use, and the scales should be used in conjunction 104

INFUSING LOVE INTO DAILY PEDAGOGY

with one another as they complement each other and in doing so users will cover more aspects of a loving pedagogy. It is important to be aware of what the LPS are and the purpose for which they have been designed. They are scales containing aspects of what loving pedagogy is, drawn and adapted from literature and presented in the preceding chapters. The elements and aspects are justified by the arguments and evidence provided in this book and in that sense the scales are conceptual. Further, unless this book has been read in its entirety some of the items on the scales will make little sense. The anchor points used (NIE = Not in evidence; INC = Inconsistent; CON = Consistent; NA = Not applicable) are drawn from the Classroom Observation Scale developed to examine effective teaching by McGhie-Richmond, Underwood, and Jordan (2007) and are used because the descriptors seem well suited for the LPS scales. The intent of the scales is for individual teachers to measure their own progress, and that of their students on their own terms, and in doing so to reflect on the various aspects of loving pedagogy presented in this book. Users of the scales should bear in mind the need to point to specific evidence that supports the ratings they award. For example, if a user were to indicate that he or she was an advocate for his or her students during the time period under examination, then a specific example of this should come to mind. Tracking and plotting progress over time by individual teachers using the LPS is recommended as this helps in the process of reflection, providing affirmation of a job well done, and can also point to gaps in areas requiring attention. As a self-evaluation tool, the LPS are both personal and subjective according to the perceptions and understandings of the user. Reflective diaries. Reflective diaries are helpful records of a teacher’s daily (or weekly) thoughts and can be useful where a teacher would like to review their history of practice over a given period of time. Further, the act of writing a diary forces a teacher to focus on current issues of practice. The traditional idea of keeping a page-a-day or page-a-week diary works well for some. For others, keeping a diary in the form of a concept map of the day’s or week’s activities (that can be added to over time) might be quicker and offer more to the visual learner. The focus of the diary should be on the extent to which loving pedagogy is being successfully implemented. Clearly, the keeping of a diary will not by itself answer this question, however, a diary can assist a teacher to identify successes and challenges that need to be overcome, how they feel about the progress being made, and if used in conjunction with other sources of reflective information can add more weight to conclusions and future directions. Student feedback. Asking students for honest feedback on the development of the loving classroom can be helpful. This feedback can come in many forms including written and verbal. Often, an honest and open informal discussion with students is just as helpful as what might be viewed as more formal means of student feedback such as in a written form. Typically, older students will be more practiced and capable of providing feedback through a direct conversation initiated by the teacher than younger students. Younger students, nonetheless, can also provide helpful feedback if supported by a more structured and specific set of questions. In both instances the 105

CHAPTER 7

students must feel comfortable in providing honest feedback to their teacher that, it is assumed, would be more likely in an educational context in which love is embedded. Such verbal feedback should be recorded, perhaps as quotes on a sidebar to the reflective diary of the teacher. Written feedback can also be provided both directly or anonymously. Educators might like to pose a ‘question of the week’ to which students can respond on slips of paper that are placed anonymously into a response box. As an example, questions of the week might include “In what ways have people become more kind in our classroom?” or “Do you feel like you can talk to your teacher if you are having problems? Why or why not?” Responses can be collated and organized according to their similarities and differences and examined alongside the other forms of evidence and then shared with students in order to check for accuracy and possibly elicit further feedback. Feedback from colleagues. Authors sometimes engage what is known as a ‘critical friend’ to provide honest feedback and suggestions for improvement of a particular piece of writing in development. The same process can be used in teaching. A trusted colleague can be asked to be a critical friend with respect to how loving pedagogy is being used and developed in a classroom. This friend acts as a provocateur asking insightful questions that help the teacher to better reflect on practice, and observing classroom practice with a view to making suggestions for improvement or generating more questions to aid in the reflection of the colleague. This process involves a collegial and professional conversation. Ideally, both participants will have read and developed a familiarity with the content of this book. In that way the conversation is based on mutual understandings of what constitutes loving pedagogy. These understandings may well be modified and deepened as a result of the professional conversation. I engaged in a similar process with a colleague with respect to my university teaching. We noted that it was important that the critical friend possessed the qualities of discretion, trustworthiness, honesty, and kindness. Further, the friend should have adequate background knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation (in this instance loving pedagogy), as well as being a colleague rather than a supervisor or in some other position where power relationships might become an issue. As with other forms of reflective data gathering, the results of any observations or conversations should be recorded. This might come in the form of a post-meeting single page reflection completed by both parties. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: PASSION AS A CATALYST FOR A LOVING PEDAGOGY

This text has tried to be explicit about what it means to engage in a true pedagogy of love, and has offered some thoughts on how the various aspects that comprise a loving pedagogy can be infused into classroom practice. These aspects, chosen because they resonate across psychological, philosophical, and religious discourses on love have included kindness and empathy, intimacy and bonding, sacrifice and forgiveness, and community and acceptance. This book represents what is perhaps an early step, a foundation for those wishing to further investigate the idea of love 106

INFUSING LOVE INTO DAILY PEDAGOGY

as pedagogy, and it provides clear direction for those who want to change and adapt practice in thoughtful ways in order to enhance not only learning but relationships and the positive experience of schooling everybody hopes students take away. While it has rarely been mentioned explicitly, the idea of passion has not been absent from this book. Indeed, it has been everywhere, underlying every suggestion. When teachers infuse passion (in the sense of super-heated enthusiasm for the idea of a loving pedagogy) the entire endeavor of teaching and learning is enlivened. A passion for teaching is something that might be said to exist naturally in every good teacher. While this is true, this passionate spark might be nurtured further through the adoption of a loving pedagogy. Those who are passionate about teaching want to go to work each day, they want to see their students, and they are excited and enthused about what the future holds as they draw their classroom community closer together in the act of learning. This passion can be fostered to varying degrees according to circumstances, but ultimately the responsibility for remaining passionate about teaching rests with the individual. It is an attitude that one will love both one’s students and the art and science of teaching in the face of whatever barriers that might get in the way. It is a healthy naivety and optimism, and a willingness to suspend cynicism in order to produce the optimum environment and set of relationships for students and colleagues to thrive in. A loving pedagogy represents a positive outlet for the passion many teachers come to their work each day feeling, an outlet that has the potential to benefit all members of a classroom and school community. If we believe that how we treat our children impacts the way they behave as adults, as well as how they live their lives in the present, then raising them in an atmosphere of love might contribute to a better society. In the modern world it is normal for educators to want to know children, to want to protect them, to love them, and watch them grow. Growing up in a loving environment may well engender a greater capacity for empathy, kindness, affection, and altruism in individuals. Given that society is shaped by the individuals of which it is comprised, it might reasonably be expected that children who grow up in loving and gentle environments will contribute to a more loving and gentle society. Teachers can play their part in this. In contexts where a loving environment at school is consistent with a loving environment at home, children are surrounded by love at every turn. Consider the case study of Jake in Chapter Six. He was loved by all who knew him, and was consistently surrounded by love both at home and at school. This love helped Jake to engage with the world in positive ways. It helped him to learn to talk, to make friends, to learn academics, and to develop physically, emotionally, and cognitively. Jake faced his challenges hand-in-hand with a loving family, and a loving school community who celebrated who he was and what he had accomplished; while at the same time anticipating even greater accomplishments. Clearly not all students are like Jake, but what they have in common with him, what we all have in common with him, is a fundamental need for love to form the basis of our learning. If we believe this to be true, then as teachers we are compelled to adopt an ever more loving approach to our pedagogy for the sake of our students and ourselves.

107

REFERENCES

Adams, J. M. (2007). Raising a compassionate child. Parenting, 20(11), 96–100. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1–94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1993). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). New York: Routledge. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Albert, L. (2003). Cooperative discipline (Rev. ed.). USA: AGS. Allan, G. (1996). Kinship and friendship in modern Britain. London: Oxford University Press. American Psychological Association. (2006). Forgiveness: A sampling of research results. Washington, DC: Office of International Affairs. Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press. Arnold, R. (2006). Empathic intelligence: The phenomenon of intersubjective engagement. In J.-B. Son & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology, and language (pp. 1–15). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed. Bailey, B., & Evitt, M. (2006). Kindness counts. Scholastic Parent & Child, 14(3), 35–37. Baldwin, C., & Baldwin, A. (1970). Children’s judgments of kindness. Child Development, 41(1), 29–47. Barron, I., & Topping, K. (2008). School-based child sexual abuse prevention programmes: The evidence on effectiveness. Journal of Children’s Services, 3(3), 31–53. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2005). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485–498). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Beall, A., & Sternberg, R. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 12(3), 417–438. Bell, A. V., Richerson, P. J., & McElreath, R. (2009). Culture rather than genes provides greater scope for the evolution of large-scale human prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(42), 17671–17674. Bernstein, M., Troisi, T., & Pompilio, J. (2009). Goal-directed schools. School Administrator, 66(4), 18–21. Berry, J. W. (1984). Multiculturalism policy in Canada: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 16(4), 353–370. Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of love. In R. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 171–183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bickert, T., Jablon, J. R., & Dodge, D. T. (2005). Building the primary classroom: A complete guide to teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers. Borba, M. (2002). Building moral intelligence: The seven essential virtues that teach kids to do the right thing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. Berguno, G., Leroux, P., McAinsh, K., & Shaikh, S. (2004). Children’s experience of loneliness at school and its relation to bullying and the quality of teacher interventions. The Qualitative Report, 9(3), 483–499. Bloom, L. (2009). Classroom management: Creating positive outcomes for all students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Booth, T. (1996). Stories of exclusion: Natural and unnatural selection. In E. Blyth & J. Milner (Eds.), Exclusion from school: Inter-professional issues for policy and practice (pp. 78–89). London: Routledge. 109

REFERENCES Brownlee, J.-A., & Carrington, S. (2000). Opportunities for authentic experience and reflection: A teaching program designed to change attitudes towards disability for pre-service teachers. Support for Learning, 15(3), 99–105. Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58(4), 1101–1113. Buhrmester, D., & Prager, K. (1995). Patterns and functions of self-disclosure during childhood and adolescence. In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp. 10–56). New York: Cambridge University Press. Burr, W. R., Day, R. D., & Bahr, K. S. (1993). Family science. USA: Brooks/Cole. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cambridgeshire City Council. (2002). A code of conduct for teachers and employees working with young people. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk Carrithers, M. (1996). The Buddha. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 65–80. Cho, D. (2005). Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love. Educational Theory, 55(1), 79–96. Church, E. B. (2000). Learning to show kindness: Expressions of kindness. Scholastic Parent and Child, 15(1), 46–47. Claval, P. (2001). Multiculturalism and the dynamics of modern civilisations. Paris: University of ParisSorbonne. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/papers/claval-s2.pdf Clough, W. (2006). To be loved and to love. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 34(1), 23–31. Cohen, A. P. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. London: Routledge. Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–144. Collins, T. (2005, November). First Nations, Metis, and Inuit education. Presented at Concordia University College of Alberta. Commons, M. L., & Wolfsont, C. A. (2001). A complete theory of empathy must consider stage changes. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 30–31. Comunian, A. (1998). The kindness scale. Psychological Reports, 83(3), 1351–1362. Cooper, L. M., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment, emotional regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(5), 1380–1397. Crystal, D., Watanabe, H., & Chin, W. (1997). Intolerance of human differences: A cross-cultural and developmental study of American, Japanese, and Chinese children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 149–167. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90033-2. Dalai Lama IIV. (2002). How to practice. New York: Pocket Books. Dalai Lama IIV. (2006). Kindness, clarity and insight. Virginia, VA: Spring Lion Publications. Danyluk, R. C., & da Costa, J. L. (1999, April). Identifying and addressing challenges encountered by educators of Aboriginal children in an urban setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Friere: A pedagogy of love. Cambridge, USA: Westview Press. Demeris, H., Childs, R. A., & Jordan, A. (2008). The influence of students with special needs included in Grade 3 classrooms on the large-scale achievement scores of children without special needs. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 609–627. Dewey, J. (1894). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. Dimaggio, G., Lysaker, P., Carcione, A., Nicolò, G., & Semerari, A. (2008). Know yourself and you shall know the other...to a certain extent: Multiple paths of influence of self-reflection on mindreading. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 17(3), 778–789. Enright, R. D., & Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness with psychological interventions. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139–161). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. 110

REFERENCES Enright, R., & Fitzgibbons, R. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10381-006. Enright, R., Santos, M., & Al-Mabuk, R. (1989). The adolescent as forgiver. Journal of Adolescence, 12(1), 95–110. doi:10.1016/0140-1971(89)90092-4. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton. Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 218–244). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Everding, H. E., & Huffaker, L. A. (1998). Educating adults for empathy: Implications of cognitive role-taking and identity formation. Religious Education, 93(4), 413–431. Fehr, B., & Russell, J. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(3), 425–438. Femia, E., Zarit, S., Blair, C., Jarrott, S., & Bruno, K. (2008). Intergenerational preschool experiences and the young child: Potential benefits to development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 272–287. Fisher, D., Roach, V., & Frey, N. (2002). Examining the general programmatic benefits of inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(1), 63–78. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Selfneglect and over involvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 121–140. Gelven, M. (1988). Is sacrifice a virtue? The Journal of Value Inquiry, 22, 235–252. Goldman, J., & Padayachi, U. (2000). Some methodological problems in estimating incidence and prevalence in child sexual abuse research. Journal of Sex Research, 37(4), 305–314. Gordon, M., & Green, J. (2008). Roots of Empathy changing the world child by child. Education Canada, 48(2), 34–36. Gosselin, P., Beaupre, M., & Boissonneault, A. (2002). Perception of genuine and masking smiles in children and adults: Sensitivity to traces of anger. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 58–72. Graham, K. (1996). Running ahead. Enhancing teacher commitment. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 45–47. Greenberg, P. (1991). Character development: Encouraging self-esteem & self-discipline in infants, toddlers, and two-year-olds. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and it’s rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. Hamilton, R. P. (2006). Love as a contested concept. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(3), 239–254. Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673–685. Hastings, N., & Chantrey Wood, K. (2002). Reorganizing primary classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Hay, D., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45(1), 84–108. doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00308.x. Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 173–183. Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). Theory and method of love. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402. Hinchliffe, G. (2001). Education or pedagogy? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 31–47. Hills, T. W. (1993). Assessment in context–teachers and children at work. Young Children, 48(5), 20–28. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach. Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40–52. Impett, E. A., & Gordon, A. (2008). For the good of others: Toward a positive psychology of sacrifice. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (pp. 79–100). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. 111

REFERENCES Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534. Jabs, C. (1995). Classroom pets. Country Living, 18(10), 176. Jacobs, M. (1991). The therapist’s revenge: The law of talion as a motive for caring. Contact, 10(2), 2–11. Joffres, C, & Haughey, M. (2001). Elementary teachers’ commitment declines: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. The Qualitative Report, 6(1), 1–20. Jones, A. (2004). Social anxiety, sex, surveillance, and the ‘safe’ teacher. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(1), 53–66. Kaminer, D., Stein, D. J., Mbanga, I., & Zungu-Dirwayi, N. (2000). Forgiveness: Toward an integration of theoretical models. Psychiatry, 63(4), 344–357. Kay, B. (2009, November 30). Toxic classrooms: Confronting anti-Semitism in our classrooms. National Post (Canada). Retrieved from http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2284173&p=2 Keen-Payne, R., & Cagle, C. S. (1993). Using the fine arts in health lessons. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 21(3), 33–35. Kneller, G. F. (1971). Introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. USA: Academic Press. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In L. Kohlberg & T. Lickona (Eds.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31–48). USA: Rinehart and Winston. Kolb, D., & Boyatzis, R. (1970). Goal-setting and self-directed behavior change. Human Relations, 23(5), 439–457. Kobak, R. (2009). Defining and measuring of attachment bonds: Comment on Kurdek (2009). Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 447–449. Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlberg’s model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629–649. Lamme, L. L., & McKinley, L. (1992). Creating a caring classroom with children’s literature. Young Children, 48(1), 65–71. Leckman, J. F., Hrdy, S. B., Keverne, E. B., & Carter, C. S. (2006). A biobehavioral model of attachment and bonding. In R. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 116–145). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Letts, N. (1995). The teacher as cheerleader. Teaching PreK-8, 25(7), 54–55. Loreman, T. (2009). Respecting childhood. London: Continuum. Loreman, T. (2009, Spring). Straight talk about inclusive education. CASS Connections. Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. M., & Harvey, D. H .P. (2010). Inclusive education: Supporting diversity in the classroom (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Hughes, J., & Manuel, J. (2006). ‘It has always been my dream’: Exploring pre-service teachers’ motivations for choosing to teach. Teacher Development, 10(1), 5–24. doi:10.1080/13664530600587311. Impett, E. A., & Gordon, A. M. (2008). For the good of others: Toward a positive psychology of sacrifice. In J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people. Vol. 2: Capitalizing on emotional experiences. Connecticut, CT: Praeger Publishing. Mantovani, S. (1995). In the world of Laura and Danielle. In Reggio Children (Ed.), Tenderness (pp. 56–63). Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Row. McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17(1), 27–51. Migliore, D. (2008). The love commandments: An opening for Christian-Muslim dialogue? Theology Today, 65(3), 312–330. Mihalas, S., Morse, W. C., Allsop, D. H., & Alvarez McHatton, P. (2009). Cultivating caring relationships between teachers and secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Implications for research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 30(2), 108–125. Miller, S. (2000). Learning to show kindness: Acts of kindness. Scholastic Parent and Child, 15(1), 46–47. 112

REFERENCES Moseley, A. (2006). Philosophy of love. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/love.htm Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher-student relationship for at-risk students. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 241–255. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2001.tb01110.x. Murray, C. (2002). Supportive teacher-student relationships: Promoting the social and emotional health of early adolescents with high incidence disabilities. Childhood Education, 78(5), 285–291. Myhre, S. M. (1993). Enhancing your dramatic play area through the use of prop boxes. Young Children, 48(5), 6–11. Nelsen, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H. S. (1993). Positive discipline in the classroom. Rocklin, CA: Prima. Newberry, M. K., & Parish, T. W. (1987). Enhancement of attitudes toward handicapped children through social interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 127(1), 59–62. Nietzsche, F. W. (1992). Ecce homo: How one becomes what one is (R. J. Hollingdale & M. Tanner, Trans.). New York: Penguin Classics. Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and family, Personal Relationships, 3(1), 97–115. Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American High Schools. Educational Research & Evaluation, 11(5), 461–485. doi:10.1080/13803610500146269. Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Peterson, M., & Loreman, T. (2005, April). Walking and talking the road to trusting community: Relationship-based schoolwide positive behavioural supports. Presented at the Whole Schooling Conference 2005, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult-child relationship processes and early schooling. Early Education and Development, 8(1), 11–26. Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 379–393. Plato. (1992). Republic. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishers. Plato. (1956). Symposium. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Smith, J. D., & Smith, T. E. C. (1996). Historic changes in mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), 3–12. Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford Press. Pretty, G. M. H. (2002). Young people’s development of the community-minded self: Considering community identity, community attach- ment, and sense of community. In A. T. Fischer, C. C. Sonn & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 183–203). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Reggio Children. (1995). Tenderness. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Reyes, P. (1990). What research has to say about commitment, performance, and productivity. In P. Reyes Ed. Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance, and productivity (pp. 15–20). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ridley, C. A., Vaughn, S. R., & Wittman, S. K. (1982). Developing empathic skills: A model for preschool children. Child Study Journal, 12, 89–97. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge. Roland, S., & Lawhon, T. (1994). How do I love thee: Enhancing intimacy in children. Childhood Education, 71(1), 38–41. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. Royal, G. P., & Roberts, M. C. (1987). Students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward disabilities: A comparison of twenty conditions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16(2), 122–132. Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., et al. (2000). Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In M. E. McCollough & K. I. Pargament (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 17–40). New York: Guilford Press. 113

REFERENCES Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005) Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 465–487. Sarason, S. (1998). Some features of a flawed educational system. Daedalus, 127(4), 1–12. Schaps, E., & Solomon, D. (1990). Schools and classrooms as caring communities. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 38–42. Schertz, M. (2006a). Empathy, intersubjectivity, and the creation of the relational subject. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 18(1), 22–30. Schertz, M. (2006b). Empathic pedagogy: Community of Inquiry and the development of empathy. Analytic Teaching, 26(1), 8–14. Schertz, M. (2007). Avoiding passive empathy with philosophy for children. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 185–198. Sears, W., & Sears, M. (2002). The fussy baby book: How to bring out the best in your high-need child. Illinois, IL: La Leche League International. Seefeldt, C. (1987). Praise: Good or bad? Dimensions, 15(4), 18–20. Sigelman, C. K., & Toebben, J. L. (1992). Tolerant reactions to advocates of disagreeable ideas in children and adolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(44), 542–557. Shipko, R. (2000). Openness, clarity, sensitivity (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Longchen Foundation. Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behaviourism, 5(2), 1–10. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds, G. J. Miller & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 177–198). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sprick, R. S. (2006). Discipline in the secondary classroom: A positive approach to behaviour management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. Sternberg, R. (2006). A duplex theory of love. In R. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 171–183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stone, R. (2005). Best classroom management practices for reaching all learners: What award-winning classroom teachers do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tapp, J. L., & Kohlberg, L. (1971). Developing senses of law and legal justice. Journal of Social Issues, 27(2), 65–91. Theilheimer, R. (1993). Something for everyone: Benefits of mixed-age grouping for children, parents, and teachers. Young Children, 48(5), 82–87. Thomas, T., & Witenberg, R. (2004). Love thy neighbours: Racial tolerance among young Australians (Report for the Australian Multicultural Foundation). Retrieved from http://www.stepone.org.au/ media/1709/love_thy_neighbours_report.pdf Thompson, L. (1995). Teaching about ethnic minority families: A pedagogy of care. Family Relations, 44(2), 129–135. Toranzo, N. (1996). Empathy development: A critical classroom tool. Volta Review, 98(3), 107–126. Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. M., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395. Vieno, A., Perkins, D. D., Smith, T. M., & Santinello, M. (2005). Democratic school climate and sense of community in school: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3–4), 327–341. Vlachou, A. (2004). Education and inclusive policy-making: Implications for research and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(1), 3–21. West, D. (2000). Paedophilia: Plague or panic? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11(3), 511–531. West, W. (2001). Issues relating to the use of forgiveness in counselling and psychotherapy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 29(4), 415–23. Willard, E. (1929). Kindness as a factor in pedagogy. Journal of Education, 110(7), 15–158.

114

REFERENCES Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43. Wise, B. (2008). High school at the tipping point. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 8–13. Worthington, E. L. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 107–137). Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. Worthington, E., Mazzeo, S., & Canter, D. (2005). Forgiveness-promoting approach: Helping clients REACH forgiveness through using a longer model that teaches reconciliation. In L. Sperry & E. P. Shafranske (Eds.), Spiritually oriented psychotherapy (pp. 235–257). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10886-010. Wright, S., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. Yahya, H. (2006). Self-sacrifice in the Qua’ran’s moral teaching (R. Evans, Trans.). New Delhi, India: Millat Book Centre. Zeece, P. (2009). Using current literature selections to nurture the development of kindness in young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 447–452.

115