In terms of academic outcomes, there is evidence that science classroom, students discussed bias in relation to. This paper first began while I was doing research for my master's thesis in improve education and academic achievement while calling for an overhaul in students, culture-based schools and strategies attempt to close the achievement . Research has been done on the relationships between various school types and. Teaching and Learning with Aloha: Successful Strategies for Engaging Hawaiian To teach the children: historical aspects of education in Hawaii. by () The journal Hūlili is available online and at KCC Library. Culture-Based Education and Its Relationship to Student Outcomes by Kanaʻiaupuni.
The expectation theory focuses on how teachers treat students. Teachers often expect less from students of certain racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. When teachers expect students to perform poorly, they approach teaching in ways that align with their low levels of expectations. In these instances, students tend to perform at the low levels expected of them by teachers. Rosenthal and Jacobson tested this theory in their Pygmalion effect study.
A group of teachers were told that their students were due for an intellectual growth spurt during the school year. Even though the students were average in terms of academic performance, the teachers interacted with them based on this expectation.
All students in the experimental group improved both academically and socially by the end of the year. Based on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy, students who experience high expectations seek to reach the level of expected behaviors. Correspondingly, students who experience low expectations act to meet the level of behavior expected of them. The cultural difference theory is based on the idea that students who are raised in different cultural settings may approach education and learning in different ways.
It is important for teachers to be aware of the differences between the school atmosphere and the home environment. People from different cultural traditions may have an approach to education that differs from the mainstream approach used in American schools. Most of the examples listed, however, are usually employed outside of, or incidental to the formal educational framework of the school and, thus, do not adequately utilize the full educational potential of a project-centered approach.
If a project-centered approach is to be effectively utilized to carry out a substantial part of the educational responsibilities vested in the school, then the projects themselves will have to be deliberately and carefully planned with particular learning tasks in mind, blending the academic functions of the school with the cultural patterns of the community.
Projects will have to be developed that incorporate and blend, implicitly or explicitly, the subject and process skills determined appropriate and necessary for the students involved. A project such as a school store, for example, can combine subject skills in math, business and language, with process skills such as organizing, planning, decision-making and interacting.
A class project conducting a survey of energy consumption in the community can incorporate elements of science, math, and social studies, along with processes of problem-solving, communicating, analysis and evaluation.
Any combination of knowledge, skills or processes may be represented in a particular project.
The important thing, however, is not which of these specific ingredients are involved, but whether or not the experience gained from involvement in the project is contributory to the educational needs of the individual student, the local community, and the society at large. One of the best and only examples of the use of a project-centered approach for a total education program is provided by Helserin his description of what he calls a "meaningful experience curriculum," as developed for the rural Bura people in northeastern Nigeria.
Though the specific content of Helser's curriculum is not always transferable to a contemporary minority setting in America, it does provide a useful illustration of how a project approach may be applied to a specific set of conditions and problems. The children in Helser's program spent about half their time on school projects and the other half on home and community activities in which these projects "take on flesh and blood" p.
His primary purpose was to build an experience-based educational program around the conditions in which the children lived, utilizing local as well as outside resources, to help them become contributing members of their community, as well as of the national society. He sought to foster "appreciation of various situations and wholesome attitudes toward situations, along with controls and specific skills" p. To accomplish this he built a curriculum, with the help of community members, around four general areas home and social life, health, agriculture and livestock, and craftseach of which served to generate a series of "problems".
Each problem was presented to the students as a task for inquiry in school, as well as a task toward which they addressed their energies outside of the school. Thus, the schooling process was closely linked with local patterns of interaction, communication, and socialization. Some examples of problems addressed in Helser's curriculum are as follows: The extent to which this curriculum linked school life with home life is illustrated by the list of "objectives" Helser associated with the problem of, "How much corn ought each family represented in the class have in order to have enough to last throughout the year?
This single project brought together a wide variety of subject matter and process skills and focused them on a real-life issue in that community. The learning that took place was for the purpose of solving the problem, not to make a good grade or to please the teacher. The project incorporated valuable learning experiences with a useful social function, thus helping students learn new skills while addressing a problem in a way that fit their particular cultural and situational needs.
Helser's summary of the "curriculum principles" upon which a project approach should be built reflects many of the points to which this article has been addressed and therefore, is included here in its original form p. All that makes life richer and more abundant which other agencies are not supplying should be the responsibility of the school. The analysis of these aims should be continued until they are reduced to units small enough to be specifically worked for in the activities requiring them.
The school should be thought of as a place where pupils may receive stimulating guidance and help in carrying out their valuable environmental activities, so that they may not only successfully complete them, but profit by all the moral, social and accessory interests which arrive.
If this is to result, the emphasis in teaching must be upon the actual living through a valuable experience, rather than the mere reading about it.
Examining the Impact of Culture on Academic Performance - The Edvocate
It should be used to supplement the child's own experience, the old and the new being organized into the necessary new way of behaving. Such supplementary experience should come from the local inheritance and from world culture. The test of its value to the child is the extent to which he can use it in furthering his activities and in securing more satisfying and effective 9 The curriculum for the first four years of school life should be general, in the sense of providing a common equipment for life and citizenship for all pupils, with the fullest use of the local environment as a starting point and as a source of interests and materials in furthering the educative process.
Helser's detailed description of a project-centered approach to education points out that it is not a new approach, but it is one that is particularly well suited and adaptable to cross-cultural situations, because of the experiential linkage it can provide between school learning and cultural practices. While his is but one example of how it might be employed, it indicates the potential of a comprehensive project orientation where a large part of the program is built around projects, rather than a limited number of projects being built into some component of a conventional program.
A project-centered approach does not preclude the necessity for more formalized forms of learning activities at various stages, but the attention is shifted from the use of projects as a supportive activity for academic learning, to academic learning as a supportive activity for projects. To the extent that a program is project-centered and process-oriented, it has the potential to accommodate learning to situational and cultural differences and to prepare students to cope with future life experiences.
It is through the flexible use of projects as a means for structuring process-oriented learning experiences linking school and community, that schools can assist minority and majority students and communities in achieving the self-determining goal of cultural eclecticism. While the focus of this section has been primarily on goals and content issues, the more critical features of a project-centered approach are reflected in the actual social organization of the educational setting structureand the experiential processes by which learning is achieved method -topics which will be addressed in greater detail in the next section.
As indicated earlier, the goals and content of an educational approach must be made explicit before the appropriate structure and method can be developed. Having established "cultural eclecticism" as the goal, "processes" as the content, and "projects" as the means, we can now pursue the situational and cultural implications of alternative approaches to structure and method, which together make up the instructional process.
The Community and the Classroom In seeking to develop an approach to education that has the potential for application to varied cultural and situational conditions, we must go beyond the simple revision of curriculum content or classroom teaching practices.
We must take into account the interactional setting itself, and find ways to restructure the social organization of that setting to allow the participants to pattern their interaction to fit the goals they are attempting to achieve.
As with thc content, we need a structure that is flexible and adaptable enough to accommodate a wide range of cognitive, communicative, and interactional patterns, while maintaining some degree of order and continuity in terms of overall direction and effort. We will, therefore, examine the suitability of formal education as a vehicle for addressing structural and methodological issues in minority education. The situational variable In the development of a social structure for an educational program, we must take into account the contextual features of the settings in which learning is to take place, because context is a major influence in the shaping of any learning process.
Of particular concern are the varied cultural and situational patterns reflected in the learning experiences associated with school vs. Is one type of setting more appropriate than another for particular kinds of learning experiences? The features of formal vs. Though schools may engage students in active learning experiences and deliberately attend to certain learning processes, if that learning remains within the detached and unique social context of the classroom, it remains subject to the distortions associated with transference from an academic to a real-world setting.
The process skills most effectively learned in a school context are those required to continue school learning and to function in an academic-oriented environment. Process skills required to function in daily life outside of the school setting can be most effectively practiced and learned in a broader community context. The more natural the situation in which learning takes place, the greater the potential for integration with the functional learning system of the learner, and the less the potential for distortion in the transfer of such learning to future situations.
Let us look then, at some different approaches to the merging of community and school experiences in the development of educational programs. We will look first at efforts to shift formal processes of education to "nonformal" contexts, and then at an attempt to recreate a "micro-society" within the formal structure of the school.
Finally, we will examine a combination of those two approaches as reflected in the "school without walls" approach. In addition to the institutionalized form of education reflected in the school, there are other forms of organized, formal educational activities in which persons may participate at various stages in their life, such as youth clubs, adult literacy programs, apprenticeship programs, and cooperative extension programs.
Since these usually take place outside the formally organized educational system, they are sometimes referred to as "nonformal" education, even though they often involve formalized processes. In its usage, nonformal education tends to be restricted to the discussion of occupational training in the context of economic, human resource, or manpower development in developing countries.
In most cases it is viewed as an extension of, or complementary to the formal educational system, and serves as a means for translating formal learning into marketable skills. This interrelatedness is indicated by some of the questions posed by Harbison Harbison goes on to conclude that, "In some cases, nonformal education is the only practical means of skill and knowledge development; in others, it offers an alternative, and often a more effective one, to education and training in formal schooling; in most cases, it can supplement, extend, and improve the processes of formal education" p.
Nonformal education may, therefore, offer a model for adapting formal education to the informal context of the community. To determine its potential, we will take a closer look at some of the assumptions and characteristics reflected in a non formal approach. Brembeckin an analysis of the uses of formal and nonformal education, provides the following premises as the basis for the development of nonformal education programs: Behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences.
The learning environments of formal and nonformal education tend to be of a different character. They shape and maintain different kinds of behavior. The goal, then, of educational strategy should be to determine the kind of behavior sought and create those educational environments which most clearly support and encourage it p.
Whereas formal learning tends to focus on the detached acquisition of knowledge, nonformal learning is geared to action and the application of knowledge. The structural characteristics of nonformal education "derive from its proximity to immediate action, work, and the opportunity to put learning to use.
These elements of the environment close the gap between learning and doing, find intrinsic motivation in the learning situation, imbed objectives in work and activity, and associate learners and teachers in meaningful lines of action" p.
Nonformal education thus, has many of the characteristics we are seeking in the development of an alternative educational approach for cultural minorities. It draws on community resources, incorporates experiential learning, allows considerable flexibility for varied types of learning experiences, and provides opportunities for student and community influence on the form and direction of learning cf.
It provides a structural framework consistent with that required for the project-centered, process-oriented approach toward which we are working.
In fact, many nonformal education programs, such as 4-H clubs, Boy Scouts and home extension services, do actively employ projects as a primary vehicle for their educational efforts. The task then, is to expand the use of such projects so that the structure of nonformal education can be extended to encompass more of the functions currently carried out by formal schooling.
The persistent calls for school reform would seem to indicate that there is a continuing need for a thorough rethinking of the fit between structure and function in educational processes. Brembeck emphasizes this need in calling for a careful assessment of the capabilities of both formal and nonformal education before the latter is put to widespread use.
Perhaps the fundamental task is to analyze more precisely the structural properties of each, to determine the potential of each for contributing to particular kinds of educational goals, and to build programs which utilize these strengths within a more unified and coherent policy of educational development.
If this were done, investments in both school and nonschool education might yield better payoffs p. Whereas nonformal education attempts to move learning out into the community, it may also be possible to move features of the community into the school to enhance learning experiences.
In reference to schools, however, Brembeck indicates that "their success as places of learning depends in part upon their ability to recreate within their walls a learning environment as naturally compelling as that existing on the outside.
That environment must be created; it is not naturally built into the structure of school learning" p. Though teachers often attempt to recreate bits and pieces of the community environment in the school, seldom do they go beyond superficial aspects, and even less often are their efforts part of a comprehensive and well-thought-through plan.
One exception to this is the "micro-society" school, devised by George Richmond Richmond, while working in the public schools of New York City, devised an approach to schooling that attempted to recreate critical aspects of society in microcosm in the context of the school.
He, with the help of the students, created social learning experiences such as the micro-economy game, the micro-capitalist society, micro-politics, and a judicial system, all within the social and academic framework of the school. He sought to "create a society small enough for the student to manage and large enough to breed the kind of expertise that convinces individuals that they can have some measure of control over the environment" p.
Instead of moving learning out into the community, he attempted to create a sense of community within the school. He describes the premises for such a model of schooling as follows: As an approach, it must be a dynamic process, one that will liberate students from a curriculum without any apparent fit to life, one that will orient students to jobs in the service industries and the professions, and one that will obtain for students a better appreciation of the world of experience.
The process must have the power to penetrate the classroom and alter its way of life.
ʻĀina & Culture-Based Education: Home
In so doing, it must make the inmate-custodian operating in many traditional schools untenable. And although the connection with work bears emphasis, the model must also offer students opportunities to become involved in academic pursuits, in recreation, in civic projects, and other productive activity p. Thus, through a simulated situation, Richmond attempts to bring the school into a closer alignment with conditions in the surrounding community.Bridging the cultural gap in the classroom - Manuel Hernandez Carmona - TEDxAmoskeagMillyard
Though he retains the broad framework of the school, he seeks to modify the content and method of education to improve its usefulness and effectiveness. Instead of studying the society around them, students and teachers engage in the evolutionary process of creating their own model of society and coping with the economic, social and political exigencies that such an effort entails.
Gradually, as the school society expands, it incorporates characteristics of the surrounding environment. At more advanced stages still, students and student groups based in the school will explore ways and develop the means to contribute goods and services to communities and organizations operating in the shadow of the school" p.
Schools, which are now almost completely consumers of goods, are to be restructured by the micro-society approach to become producers of goods and services as well. Through such experiences, the students are expected to learn the knowledge and skills necessary to eventually move out and become contributing members of their own community. To facilitate this transition into the real-life community, Richmond suggests that the detached, somewhat protected form of society that is created in the earlier stages of schooling gradually give way to actual participation in the larger society outside the school at later stages.
The emphasis at the secondary level would shift from building a micro-society in school, to "building society from school" p. He suggests that students could become involved in numerous economic enterprises, some that they would operate e. In addition, secondary students could become involved in social development activities, such as "preserving and revitalizing the history, traditions, and other cultural patterns of the locale," or "developing personal, community, and institutional ways to cope with social deviance" p.
He sees the micro-society school as having the potential, therefore, not only to prepare students for life in society as it is, but to prepare them to serve as agents of social change. One of the premises on which the model is built is that "children who create a society of their own in school, need reach only a few steps beyond-possibly only to secondary school-and only a few inches inward to appropriate the power to transform themselves and their immediate environment" p.
To the extent that the micro-society approach can achieve a restructuring of the schooling environment and create a realistic microcosm of society, it has the potential to overcome many of the inadequacies of the existing school system for cultural minorities.
Such a task will not be accomplished, however, unless the students' educational experiences encompass the full range of situations and conditions they will encounter as minority persons in the real world.
It is when the students get out into the surrounding community, therefore, that they will learn the critical survival and action-oriented skills they will need to gain control over their future in the larger society.
Richmond's design for moving students into the community at the secondary level brings us to the third approach to the linking of school and community experiences, that of the "school without walls," which combines features of both nonformal education and the micro-society school. The "school without walls": One of the most widely publicized approaches to the merging of school and community has been the Philadelphia Parkway Program, otherwise known as the "school without walls.
Instead of placing students in formal classrooms, the program operated in and around the social, political, and economic institutions along a parkway in the city of Philadelphia. Instead of following a formally structured academic curriculum, the program was designed to engage students and teachers in a continuous process of creating their own curriculum, within the framework of school district requirements. Bremer summarized the program as follows in a recruitment letter to potential students: The Parkway Program will not be a school with classroom or bells.
The organizations around the Benjamin Franklin Parkway will provide laboratories, libraries, and meeting space. Although participation will only be required for the length of the normal school year, study and work programs will be available year-round.
Students and faculty will form small groups for discussion, study, counseling, and self-evaluation. Learning situations will vary from films, jobs, and lectures to special projects Bremer and von Moschzisner, Students primary participation in the program was through membership in tutorial groups, consisting of a faculty member, a university intern, and fifteen other students.
It was in the context of the tutorial groups that students worked out their program activities and acquired the basic skills in language and mathematics required to work in the participating institutions along the Parkway. The program combined formal courses with work programs in civic institutions, social agencies, and local industries and businesses.
Some courses were taught by program staff, while others were taught by members of the participating institutions. In addition, students were directly involved in the management of the Parkway Program itself, through membership in "management groups" and participation in "town meetings. As Bremer saw it, the whole program was to be the curriculum and, therefore, not only content, but structure and method as well, were to be built around the learning needs of the students.
Thus, there were not artificial, formal age or grade distinctions. Secondary level students sometimes worked side-by-side with elementary level students. Students participated, according to interest and ability, in all aspects of the program. They learned from each other as well as from their "teachers" and the surrounding community. Since the program was not housed in a conventional school building, facilities such as abandoned warehouses, offices and schools along the Parkway were used for meeting places and to store materials and resources.
Students and teachers met on a flexible schedule for various learning activities, depending on outside involvements and individual or group needs. Teachers served as tutors and counselors, and supervised student activities with cooperating agencies and institutions in the community. The purpose of the program was to provide means for the students to learn in the community, rather than about the community, so the emphasis was on active participation in real-life enterprises, and coping with the many, varied and complex aspects of society.
Through such participation and coping, students learned "to reflect on, to understand, and to control more effectively their own lives" p. Learning was not to be restricted to society as it is, however. From Bremer's point of view the Parkway Program had two challenges: To meet these challenges, Bremer sought to change the social organization of education to bring the roles and relationships embodied in the pursuit of formal learning in line with those extant in the surrounding community, where such learning must ultimately be put to use if it is to be of any value.
And it is in this context that the Parkway Program provides a useful model for minority education. By moving learning activities into the real-life environment of the community, the detached and artificial nature of traditional schooling is avoided and natural situational frames are provided, within which students can acquire the process and subject-matter skills necessary to function in whatever roles they choose as adults. The "school without walls" provides a well-articulated and comprehensive model for accommodating schooling to the cultural and situational patterns of a particular community.
The Parkway Program was not without its problems in its evolution as a new form of institution, however, and consequently, it underwent some structural revision following the departure of Bremer as its first director, in an attempt to bring the program more in line with the traditional and predominant educational system with which it was presumed to be competing.
A "school without walls" is indeed a radical departure from conventional educational practice, but the potential and promise that such a departure holds for overcoming existing inadequacies in the formal system of education will not be realized if the program's implementation is not approached in such a way that it can overcome the inertia of the present system and prove its worth over the span of generations. To attempt educational reform of the magnitude required to address the issues that have been raised in this article requires a long-term commitment, and a transcending and wholistic perspective.
We cannot expect to significantly alter and improve the ultimate effects of the educational system by tinkering with elements within the system, such as the classroom or the curriculum.
We must instead consider the relation of the system itself to the social and cultural environment in which it operates. Only then will we be able to make the kind of long-lasting and significant changes sought by Bremer in his design and creation of the "school without walls.
Two ways are available by which this can be accomplished: The first approach is represented by the micro-society school, and the second by nonformal education and the school without walls.
The greater the departure from traditional school practices, the greater the need to restructure the social organization in which learning is to take place, so that the structure and function of education are compatible. Without such restructuring, and without community-wide understanding of the need for it, any alternative approach to community-based education is likely to be short-lived and of little consequence in the improvement of education.
It is necessary, therefore, that we give careful consideration to the implications of community-based education for the social organization of learning and determine its appropriateness for the process-oriented, project-centered approach to minority education we outlined earlier.
We will look first at the social and cultural implications of the community as a classroom, and then at the consequences of such an approach for the roles of teacher and student.
A basic theme throughout all of the previous discussion has been the need for a closer alignment between schooling and community socialization processes, particularly in minority communities. We have been seeking ways to overcome the detachment of learning from reality, and the cultural biases of the social organization reflected in current school practice.
Toward that end we have espoused a process-oriented curriculum set in a project-centered format, steps which in themselves, if implemented in a conventional school context, can go a long way toward opening formal learning to a wider range of cultural experiences. Such steps do not go far enough, however, in adapting schooling to the functional learning system of the minority student. To accomplish this, we must go beyond the framework of the school and look at the real-life environment in which varied cultural and cognitive patterns are expressed, and find ways to adapt formal learning to that environment.
We have, therefore, examined various approaches to community-based education as a means to that end. By using the community as a classroom, we are in a position to use natural situational frames as a means for integrating learning and practice and fitting patterns of formal learning to local patterns of informal learning.
Instead of depending on the unique setting of the school to establish a simulated form of learning environment in which to teach subject-matter skills, we can use the natural setting and events of the community to bring students into the flow of real-life experiences where they can acquire more pervasive and useful process skills. Students can interact and communicate with people through responsible participation in the full range of natural community situations that they might encounter as adults, and learn-through observation, reflection and practice-the skills necessary to effectively function in those situations.
Through their involvements in the community, the students can serve useful social functions and maintain their cultural identity, while learning how social systems operate and by what forces they are changed. They will then, be in a position to act on the goal of cultural eclecticism and contribute to the continuing evolution of a dynamic social order. All of the above is of little use to anyone if it cannot be put into a framework that schools and communities can identify as realistically attainable.
Obviously, we cannot simply turn students loose in the community without some direction and supportive structure within which to function. That would not be acceptable or helpful to the school, the community, or the students. But neither is the rigid structure of the existing school system acceptable or functional as a means for organizing learning experiences for minority students.
Between those two conditions there are unlimited options, however, from which schools and communities can choose to organize learning environments suited to the educational goals they hold for their students. The option that has been proposed here is the project-centered approach, because it is flexible and adaptable to nearly any situation considered desirable for learning and can accommodate any form of knowledge or skills a community considers important for their children, with a minimum of cultural intrusion.
If conditions are such that learning experiences cannot be provided in the community, projects can readily be incorporated into a school-based program as well. But the project approach is particularly well-suited to the education of minority students in a community setting, because it engenders widespread interaction between school and community participants, and thus, provides built-in mechanisms for community influence on the direction and form of learning.
In addition, projects can be designed around natural patterns of interaction and groupings of persons, while addressing actual tasks and problems in a minority or a majority setting. Combining projects with community-based education provides a powerful alternative to conventional schooling. It shifts control of education into the hands of the community and it opens up opportunities for meaningful learning experiences to a broader sector of the population.
Instead of imposing externally derived categories of learning on students, the categories are derived from the natural conditions surrounding the student's daily life experiences.
Project activities are flexibly structured to allow students to fit the learning to their individual learning styles, needs and abilities, and to community values, norms and cultural practices with a minimum of discontinuity. Educational performance is judged by task-oriented standards, rather than test scores, thus reducing the discrepancy between ideal and real. The vast diversity of situational and cultural conditions extant in any community is accommodated, therefore, by an organizational structure that is supportive of the differences, but still provides a means for the development of equivalence structures by which productive interaction and social order can be achieved.
The success of any attempt at a project-centered, community-based approach to education is highly dependent, as is any educational endeavor, on the orientation of the persons involved in its implementations. The critical persons in formal educational processes are the students and the teacher, so it is to an examination of the consequences of our approach for their roles and relationships that we turn next.
Without appropriately oriented and prepared teachers and students, we cannot expect any alternative approach, no matter how well conceived, to go very far in practice. The adaptation of formal education to a project-centered, community-based format can have a dramatic effect on the traditional roles of teacher and student. In general, the power and authority for the control of learning is substantially shifted from the teacher to the students and community. The source of skills and understanding is lodged in the setting, rather than the person of the teacher.
Any situation, person or event is a potential source for learning, and the student has considerable latitude in defining the nature of that learning.
Through their direct participation in the educational process, community members can acquire the power to influence the direction of learning. Learning can become a two-way process, whereby students learn through the activities organized by teachers, and teachers learn through their active involvements with students in the community.
It is through this two-way flow of learning, that educational experiences can be made meaningful and adapted to changing conditions. In a community-based approach, the teachers employ their process skills to assist students in acquiring similar skills of their own, through joint exploration of the real-life opportunities available in the surrounding natural physical and social environment.
Students are able to engage in projects that bring them together in natural groupings related to the requirements of the task and needs and interests of the learner, rather than artificial grouping by age-grade or test scores.
Home - ʻĀina & Culture-Based Education - Research Guides at Kapi'olani Community College
Attention can be paid to the processes by which students function as a group, so that they can learn from each other as well as from the learning activity itself. Through such group experience, students are able to build and solidify their own identities, and acquire the skills and attitudes necessary to function as contributing members of other social groups.
Students are able to develop their individuality through the natural processes of group interaction. Thus, the social group takes on a greater responsibility in the shaping of learning experiences in a community-based approach to education.
The student serves as teacher as well as learner, through participation in a group process of educational and social development. While such processes occur naturally in a community setting, they are often thwarted by the one-way flow of experience reflected in the conventional social organization of the school.
Along with the student role, the role of "teacher" changes too, from that of transmitter of knowledge and skills, to that of organizer of learning activities.
Instead of doing things to students, the teacher works with students, as a tutor, counselor, facilitator and supervisor, in the development and carrying out of learning projects. The teacher's role is to organize community resources into productive learning experiences contributory to student needs, rather than serving as the only source for such learning.
Those learning needs that cannot be met in the community context can then be provided through more formalized means, with the teacher working with the students as a resource person in developing the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out particular responsibilities in the community.
Only at the advanced stages of schooling, for those students who wish to pursue avenues of interest that cannot be tied to experience or where the opportunities for experience are not readily available, is it necessary to pursue a detached form of learning. Below university level work, such instances need be few in number, given adequately prepared, experientially-oriented teachers. Since a community-based approach involves the teacher more directly in community activities and fosters more personalized involvement with the students, it is necessary to distinguish between the roles of local community members vs.