Theories of Education in Relation to Curriculum Theories

In one of my other classes I'm taking this semester, Principles of Curriculum and Development, we were asked to write a reaction paper to the first two chapters of our text. The paper itself was to be tailored to what type of curriculum tradition we would believe ( 1-Intellectual Traditionalist Speaker 2-Social Behaviorist Speaker 3-Experientialist Speaker 4- Critical Reconstructionist Speaker) in and the theory of education we most believe in ( 1-Progrssivism 2-Perennialism 3-Essentialism 4-Reconstructionism).

It was very interesting to see how intertwined these two core structures of learning were. The traditions were clearly stated in the text, Basis for Curriculum Planning by Parkay, Anctil, and Hass. The four were described as follows:

Intellectual Traditionalist Speaker- Appearing somewhat formal, self-assured, and willing to deliver the inspirational lecture or to engage in analytic, Socratic dialogue and debate.

Social Behaviorist Speaker- Less formal attire, not quite a lab coat- but in that spirit, oozing with the desire to discover and invent, analytically and scientifically, what works for the needs of todays' world, a little rough around the edges.

Experientialist Speaker- Very casual, trying to "tune in" to the audience, obviously desirous of engaging them in an interpersonal fashion, rather than by lecture or by precept.

Critical Reconstructionist Speaker- Starkly serious, upset with injustice and the complicity of the staus quo about it; suspicious of conspiracies- intentional and unintentional- restless about the lack of time to right wrongs before injustice reigns supreme.

As far as the basis of curriculum tradition I decided was most visibly analagous to my personality, I chose that of the experientialist speaker. I've found throughout my childhood into adulthood that I learn by doing. Teachers and professors could lecture and lecture about a topic but unless I found it tangibly related to something in my own life, I don't think it would truly sink in.

The four theories of education I found to reiterate what was already said in the traditions of curriculum. Here is a web link to the definition of 4 twentieth century educational theories
http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/w.willis/fourtheories.html (the text follows)

FOUR TWENTIETH CENTURY THEORIES OF EDUCATION
Major themes identified by George F. Kneller in chapter three of Introduction to the Philosophy of Education

PROGRESSIVISM (John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, John Childs)
1. Education should be life itself, not a preparation for living.
2. Learning should be directly related to the interests of the child.
3. Learning through problem solving should take precedence over the inculcating of subject matter.
4. The teacher's role is not to direct but to advise.
5. The school should encourage cooperation rather than competition.
6. Only democracy permits - indeed encourages - the free interplay of ideas and personalities that is a necessary condition of true growth.

PERENNIALISM (Robert Hutchins, Mortimer Adler)
1. Despite differing environments, human nature remains the same everywhere; hence, education should be the same for everyone.
2. Since rationality is man's highest attribute, he must use it to direct his instinctual nature in accordance with deliberately chosen ends.
3. It is education's task to import knowledge of eternal truth.
4. Education is not an imitation of life but a preparation for it.
5. The student should be taught certain basic subjects that will acquaint him with the world's permanencies.
6. Students should study the great works of literature, philosophy, history, and science in which men through the ages have revealed their greatest aspirations and achievements.

ESSENTIALISM (William Bagley, Herman Horne)
1. Learning, of its very nature, involves hard work and often unwilling application.
2. The initiative in education should lie with the teacher rather than with the pupil.
3. The heart of the educational process is the assimilation of prescribed subject matter.
4. The school should retain traditional methods of mental discipline.

RECONSTRUCTIONISM (George Counts, Theodore Brameld)
1. Education must commit itself here and now to the creation of a new social order that will fulfill the basic values of our culture and at the same time harmonize with the underlying social and economic forces of the modern world.
2. The new society must be a genuine democracy, whose major institutions and resources are controlled by the people themselves.
3. The child, the school, and education itself are conditioned inexorably by social and cultural forces.
4. The teacher must convince his pupils of the validity and urgency of the reconstructionist solution, but he must do so with scrupulous regard for democratic procedures.
5. The means and ends of education must be completely re-fashioned to meet the demands of the present cultural crisis and to accord with the findings of the behavioral sciences.

I chose to believe in progressivism mainly due to its similarities to what I chose when I wrote my initial paper as an experientialist. Both need students or pupils to experience what they are learning to truly have it sink in and further its meaning.

I was just wondering as far as the people in my class, what beliefs in both of the above scenarios (curriculum tradition and learning theories) do you fall in, and more importantly, why you profess these beliefs?