- Email: [email protected]
The search for the new: Frenzied, faddish, or fundamental?
Journal of School Psychology 1970 Q Vol, 8, No. AN
EPILOGUE THE SEARCH FOR THE NEW: FRENZIED, FADDISH, OR. FUNDAMENTAL?
T. E R N E S T N E W L A N D University of Illinois--Urbana Summary: Seeking "new frontiers" and "role identifications" is taken to be more reflec rive of the orientations of the seekers than of fundamental newness. While a search for the new can and will be productive if the searchers are well grounded, much remains to be accomplished under commitments which long have been acknowledged by those more fully trained and experienced in school psychology. The dander of a fair portion of those whom some regard as "progressives" in school psychology or of those who so regard themselves may be roused by the title of this article. T h a t intent is disclaimed--"Madison Avenue," maybe--provocative, perhaps. I t is desired here mainly to stimulate a consideration of the school psychologist's functions in terms of the total psychoeducational pieture, particularly as regards the learner and those persons and forces which impinge upon him in the process of learning, rather than in terms of what often are idiosyncratic perceptions of the "new." The concept of newness is unavoidably ambiguous, if not actually elusive. It is always highly relative. T h a t which is old hat to an adult can be new to the child or adolescent, and a procedure that is run of the mine to a person in one culture or subculture can be novel in another. What may be new to the urban child may long have been known to the rural child. A way of thinking and acting which long has been accepted and validated by a psychologist seem so unheard-of to the psychometrist that he either rejects it because it is different or professes not to understand it because he cannot incorporate it into his frame of reference. The shades of Witmer must have an I-told-you-so aura as children now seem to have learning difficulties. Thorndike, Pavlov, and Watson must be sitting comfortably back on their astral thrones as behavior modifiers implement, elaborate, and synthesize their early leads on learning. Is it that new objectives are being sought? In a fundamental sense, this position is hardly tenable. I f the school psychologist has the overriding commitment to facilitate learning by children, anything he has done, can do, or might do validly and relevantly in regard to the child himself, the child's teachers, the child's classroom or school, the child's parents, or his larger environment is, or can be, contributive to that end. Is it that new devices or techniques are sought? If so, the extent to which either is based upon sound psychological theory needs more serious consideration than tends often to be the case. Refinement of whatever devices or techniques which the school psychologist may effect or capitalize upon can be regarded as contributive to the fundamental objective. It must be, then, that newness inheres in the individual's widening and deepening perceptions of the nature of the primary goal, or in finding new approaches by which the underlying objective can be better attained. Evidences of these kinds of newness are at hand. We have moved, for instance, from a perception of the child as a static or "dynamically" driven individual to a perception of him as a person growing in a nurturing or relatively nonnurturing environment that consists of significant others. O u r sensitivities have been broadened to the "climate of the classroom" and to "community mental 242
EPILOGUE
243
health." The ingenuity of more and more of us is being taxed by the mysteries of mediational processes, as well as by firm evidence or presumptions of neuropathology. N e w devices or modified uses of old devices for.ascertaining.learning potential and for providing productive learning stimulation have attracted explorers as well as addicts. These developments as well as others yet to be identified can be good so long as they are not overgeneralized and so long as the sound psychological concepts and principles underlying them are identified, studied, and understood. Many of us have had the experience of giving papers at, of attending, or of reading reports on conferences called for the purpose of identifying or exploring "new functions in school psychology" only to discover that most of what presumably may have been new to the organizers of the conferences had for at least a considerable length of time been integral parts of the work or orientation in school psychology practices and programs. In a 1967 text on school psychology, one of the contributors is quoted as projecting "foci around which school psychologists might direct their future services." His second focus for the seventies (my emphasis) was the provision of "psychological consultation to school personnel." Yet this sort of contribution was an integral part of school psychologists' functioning in a number of parts of the country as far back as at least the thirties! Predicting the past as future may sensitize some hitherto unaware members of a group, but it throws much light upon the inadequacy of the predictor's orientation. The search for the new is not to be deplored, but it needs to be perceived in perspective. The "new," often broadly heralded as such or frantically sought by newcomers to a field, actually is unique to the perceiver, but that does not establish its true novelty in a given area of professional or scientific concern. Innovations appear (or are discovered) most gradually and infrequently in such areas. Often newness is perceived as a result of the use of different terms to denote essentially old phenomena or conditions. Sometimes, neologisms denote either already-known phenomena or old phenomena with slight embellishments which may have resulted from more refined inquiry or more integrated conceptuallzafions. But this is not intended to be a diatribe against idiosyncratic perceptions of newness. We welcome the promise of growth which the acquisition of such perceptions reflects. Nor is this intended to imply that there is nothing new, whether it be in the rarer sense of a new fundamental principle or orientation or in the much more common sense of refinement or extension of some extant underlying concept. Rather, it is desired here to suggest that there is much yet to be done by school psychologists, along lines already generally identified, if they are to render the servme which I believe is, at least implicitly, their major responsibility. In contrast with that child's characterization of the school psychologist as the person "who tells the teacher why you failed," the major responsibility of the school psychologist is (and long has been) to work with teachers in the interests of children. This, in fact, is an oversimplification for the purpose of contrasting this desirable orientation with that of those (probably wearing imaginary white coats) who "diagnose" children and then only write reports on them. More justifiably, the school psychologist's responsibility should be to work in the interests of children, as individuals or in groups, with those significant others who contribute to the total psychological climate in which those children have to do their learning.
244
JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
Implicit in such a "role definition" are certain qualifications which the school psychologist must have if he is to give taxpayers what they think they are paying for. He must be well grounded in basic psychology--in the fundamental principles of learning, of child development, and of social interaction, for instance. He must be directly familiar with how these principles operate in the actual learning situation--just how the child learns (whether to be an achiever or an underachiever), how educational repair work can be done (by the teacher, probably under his direction), and how to manipulate elements in the child's and teacher's environment which can contribute to adjustment or to maladjustment. He must also be capable of working effectively with and through not only the teacher and the parents but also other instructional and administrative staff, counseling and guidance personnel, school social workers, health personnel, and, to whatever extent is appropriate, community agencies. But none of this is "new." Perhaps, by virtue of the fact that such an amplitude and depth of involvement do not characterize the functioning of many who are called "school psychologists," this would seem "new" to those flitting superficially around the edge of fundamental educational problems. However, the fact remains that, to those who have had a broad base of preparation and have been working in this field for years in the light of that breadth of preparation, the improvement of functioning in these manners hardly can be called "new." The voices crying out in the wilderness about "role identification" and "new frontiers" suggest an all-too-general limitation in the preparation of those whose voices are being heard. These symptoms should be recognized for what they suggest. State agencies in particular should recognize that they contribute to such feelings of desperation by requiring only superficial prepara, tion for certification and by promulgating standards of practice which mitigate against progressing in these (and other) "new" directions. Those in training institutions must themselves be well-grounded psychologically as well as realistically oriented to actual classroom learning situations. At the least, they should strive to turn out persons capable of making sound psychological assessments of children and capable of working in children's realistic learning situations instead of creating those who function as psychometric robots. T. Ernest Newland Professor of Educational Psychology and Director, School Psychology ~Program University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois
EPILOGUE THE SEARCH FOR THE NEW: FRENZIED, FADDISH, OR. FUNDAMENTAL?
T. E R N E S T N E W L A N D University of Illinois--Urbana Summary: Seeking "new frontiers" and "role identifications" is taken to be more reflec rive of the orientations of the seekers than of fundamental newness. While a search for the new can and will be productive if the searchers are well grounded, much remains to be accomplished under commitments which long have been acknowledged by those more fully trained and experienced in school psychology. The dander of a fair portion of those whom some regard as "progressives" in school psychology or of those who so regard themselves may be roused by the title of this article. T h a t intent is disclaimed--"Madison Avenue," maybe--provocative, perhaps. I t is desired here mainly to stimulate a consideration of the school psychologist's functions in terms of the total psychoeducational pieture, particularly as regards the learner and those persons and forces which impinge upon him in the process of learning, rather than in terms of what often are idiosyncratic perceptions of the "new." The concept of newness is unavoidably ambiguous, if not actually elusive. It is always highly relative. T h a t which is old hat to an adult can be new to the child or adolescent, and a procedure that is run of the mine to a person in one culture or subculture can be novel in another. What may be new to the urban child may long have been known to the rural child. A way of thinking and acting which long has been accepted and validated by a psychologist seem so unheard-of to the psychometrist that he either rejects it because it is different or professes not to understand it because he cannot incorporate it into his frame of reference. The shades of Witmer must have an I-told-you-so aura as children now seem to have learning difficulties. Thorndike, Pavlov, and Watson must be sitting comfortably back on their astral thrones as behavior modifiers implement, elaborate, and synthesize their early leads on learning. Is it that new objectives are being sought? In a fundamental sense, this position is hardly tenable. I f the school psychologist has the overriding commitment to facilitate learning by children, anything he has done, can do, or might do validly and relevantly in regard to the child himself, the child's teachers, the child's classroom or school, the child's parents, or his larger environment is, or can be, contributive to that end. Is it that new devices or techniques are sought? If so, the extent to which either is based upon sound psychological theory needs more serious consideration than tends often to be the case. Refinement of whatever devices or techniques which the school psychologist may effect or capitalize upon can be regarded as contributive to the fundamental objective. It must be, then, that newness inheres in the individual's widening and deepening perceptions of the nature of the primary goal, or in finding new approaches by which the underlying objective can be better attained. Evidences of these kinds of newness are at hand. We have moved, for instance, from a perception of the child as a static or "dynamically" driven individual to a perception of him as a person growing in a nurturing or relatively nonnurturing environment that consists of significant others. O u r sensitivities have been broadened to the "climate of the classroom" and to "community mental 242
EPILOGUE
243
health." The ingenuity of more and more of us is being taxed by the mysteries of mediational processes, as well as by firm evidence or presumptions of neuropathology. N e w devices or modified uses of old devices for.ascertaining.learning potential and for providing productive learning stimulation have attracted explorers as well as addicts. These developments as well as others yet to be identified can be good so long as they are not overgeneralized and so long as the sound psychological concepts and principles underlying them are identified, studied, and understood. Many of us have had the experience of giving papers at, of attending, or of reading reports on conferences called for the purpose of identifying or exploring "new functions in school psychology" only to discover that most of what presumably may have been new to the organizers of the conferences had for at least a considerable length of time been integral parts of the work or orientation in school psychology practices and programs. In a 1967 text on school psychology, one of the contributors is quoted as projecting "foci around which school psychologists might direct their future services." His second focus for the seventies (my emphasis) was the provision of "psychological consultation to school personnel." Yet this sort of contribution was an integral part of school psychologists' functioning in a number of parts of the country as far back as at least the thirties! Predicting the past as future may sensitize some hitherto unaware members of a group, but it throws much light upon the inadequacy of the predictor's orientation. The search for the new is not to be deplored, but it needs to be perceived in perspective. The "new," often broadly heralded as such or frantically sought by newcomers to a field, actually is unique to the perceiver, but that does not establish its true novelty in a given area of professional or scientific concern. Innovations appear (or are discovered) most gradually and infrequently in such areas. Often newness is perceived as a result of the use of different terms to denote essentially old phenomena or conditions. Sometimes, neologisms denote either already-known phenomena or old phenomena with slight embellishments which may have resulted from more refined inquiry or more integrated conceptuallzafions. But this is not intended to be a diatribe against idiosyncratic perceptions of newness. We welcome the promise of growth which the acquisition of such perceptions reflects. Nor is this intended to imply that there is nothing new, whether it be in the rarer sense of a new fundamental principle or orientation or in the much more common sense of refinement or extension of some extant underlying concept. Rather, it is desired here to suggest that there is much yet to be done by school psychologists, along lines already generally identified, if they are to render the servme which I believe is, at least implicitly, their major responsibility. In contrast with that child's characterization of the school psychologist as the person "who tells the teacher why you failed," the major responsibility of the school psychologist is (and long has been) to work with teachers in the interests of children. This, in fact, is an oversimplification for the purpose of contrasting this desirable orientation with that of those (probably wearing imaginary white coats) who "diagnose" children and then only write reports on them. More justifiably, the school psychologist's responsibility should be to work in the interests of children, as individuals or in groups, with those significant others who contribute to the total psychological climate in which those children have to do their learning.
244
JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
Implicit in such a "role definition" are certain qualifications which the school psychologist must have if he is to give taxpayers what they think they are paying for. He must be well grounded in basic psychology--in the fundamental principles of learning, of child development, and of social interaction, for instance. He must be directly familiar with how these principles operate in the actual learning situation--just how the child learns (whether to be an achiever or an underachiever), how educational repair work can be done (by the teacher, probably under his direction), and how to manipulate elements in the child's and teacher's environment which can contribute to adjustment or to maladjustment. He must also be capable of working effectively with and through not only the teacher and the parents but also other instructional and administrative staff, counseling and guidance personnel, school social workers, health personnel, and, to whatever extent is appropriate, community agencies. But none of this is "new." Perhaps, by virtue of the fact that such an amplitude and depth of involvement do not characterize the functioning of many who are called "school psychologists," this would seem "new" to those flitting superficially around the edge of fundamental educational problems. However, the fact remains that, to those who have had a broad base of preparation and have been working in this field for years in the light of that breadth of preparation, the improvement of functioning in these manners hardly can be called "new." The voices crying out in the wilderness about "role identification" and "new frontiers" suggest an all-too-general limitation in the preparation of those whose voices are being heard. These symptoms should be recognized for what they suggest. State agencies in particular should recognize that they contribute to such feelings of desperation by requiring only superficial prepara, tion for certification and by promulgating standards of practice which mitigate against progressing in these (and other) "new" directions. Those in training institutions must themselves be well-grounded psychologically as well as realistically oriented to actual classroom learning situations. At the least, they should strive to turn out persons capable of making sound psychological assessments of children and capable of working in children's realistic learning situations instead of creating those who function as psychometric robots. T. Ernest Newland Professor of Educational Psychology and Director, School Psychology ~Program University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois