Contents
It should be clear from the previous chapters that it is not enough for me to state only my view of psychotherapy: it is important for me to describe what the client experiences as well, since his living experience has formed the basis of my own views. And in the same way, I realized that I could not just state my views on psychotherapy-based learning: I would also like to show how the student perceives such learning.
To do this, I reviewed various reports and “feedback sheets” that I received from students in various courses over the course of several years. A selection of them would allow me to achieve the goal. However, in the end I chose two papers by Dr. Samuel Tenenbaum. The first was written by him immediately after participating in my course of lectures, and the second, a letter to me, a year later. I am very grateful to him for permission to use his personal notes and would like to acquaint readers with them.
In the summer of 1958, I received an invitation to give a four-week lecture course at Brandeis University. As far as I remember, the course was called «The Process of Personality Change». I didn’t expect anything special from this course. It consisted of two-hour lectures given three times a week, rather than the intensive seminar that I usually prefer. I knew in advance that the group would be extremely heterogeneous — teachers, graduate students in psychology, counselors, several clergymen, at least one of them a foreigner, private psychotherapists, school psychologists. In general, the group was more mature and qualified than the average students. I felt completely calm. I was going to do everything in my power to make sure the course would benefit everyone, but I didn’t think it would be as effective as, for example, the counseling seminars I’ve run in the past.
Maybe it’s because I didn’t have high hopes for myself or for the band that everything went so well. I would certainly rank this experience as one of my most successful attempts to make lectures or seminars more effective. This must be kept in mind when reading Dr. Tenenbaum’s materials.
I would like to digress here a little and say that I feel much more confident when meeting a new client than when meeting a new group. I feel that I have a good command of the means to facilitate psychotherapy, and I know well what process will follow. But when meeting with a group, I have no such confidence. Sometimes, when I had every reason to believe that the course would be successful, the most important thing for the student, the initiative, self-directed learning almost did not occur. In other cases, when I doubted, everything went fine. My explanation for this is that our knowledge of the process of facilitating learning is not as accurate or complete as our understanding of the process of psychotherapy.
But back to the summer course at Brandeis. As can be seen from the reports, it turned out to be an extremely meaningful experience for almost all of its participants. I was especially interested in Dr. Tenenbaum’s report, written by him both for me and for all his colleagues. He was a mature scientist, not an impressionable young student. He was an accomplished educator with a published biography of William H. Kilpatrick, an educational philosopher. Therefore, his perception of this experience seemed to me especially valuable.
I would not like to be understood to share all of Dr. Tenenbaum’s views. Part of his experience was perceived differently by me, but that is what makes his observations so useful. I was particularly concerned that his learning experience seemed so Rogerian to him that he felt that all of its characteristics stemmed from the make-up of my personality.
For this reason, I was very happy to receive a long letter from him a year later in which he described his own teaching experience. It confirmed what I already knew from many people, namely that it is not just the personality of a particular teacher, but the use of certain principles, that makes learning active. These principles can be applied by any facilitator (A facilitator is a person who increases the speed or efficiency of an individual’s activity. — Ed.), who establishes a certain relationship with the trainees.
I think that these two papers by Dr. Tenenbaum will make it clear why the teachers who participated in this group training could not return to the old stereotypes. Despite frustration and occasional setbacks, as they teach each new group, they try to identify the conditions conducive to this all-important learning experience.
Carl R. Rogers and non-directive learning
Written by Samuel Tenenbaum, PhD
Interested in the problems of education, I took part in a training in which such an unusual special method was used that I feel obliged to tell about it. It, it seems to me, is so different from the usual accepted method of teaching, so destroys its foundations, that it must necessarily be known more widely. A good description of this process (I think the author of the method, Carl R. Rogers, would call it that way) would be “non-directive” learning.
I already had some idea of what that meant, but to be honest, I wasn’t prepared for such an overwhelming experience. And it’s not that I’m conservative. My views were most influenced by the teachings of Williams Heard Kilpatrick and John Dewey ↑ (John Dewey (1859-1952) — an outstanding American teacher, psychologist and philosopher who had a great influence on the nature of education and upbringing in schools in the United States and other countries. — Approx. ed. ). Anyone who is even in the slightest familiar with their way of thinking knows that they are not inherently provincial and narrow-minded. But the method used by Dr. Rogers during his course at Brandeis University was so unusual that I would not have believed it was possible if I had not experienced it myself. I hope I can describe the method in such a way as to give you some idea of the feelings, emotions, warmth and enthusiasm that it aroused.
The course had no structure, it really was. No one ever, including the teacher himself, knew what would happen in the classroom the next minute, what would be the subject of discussion, what issues would be raised, what personal needs, feelings and emotions would emerge. This atmosphere of unrestricted freedom — to the extent that one person can allow himself and others to be free — was established by Dr. Rogers himself. Calmly and friendly, he sat down with the students (approximately 25 people) around a large table and said that it would be nice if we introduced ourselves and talked about our goals. There was a tense silence, no one said a word. Finally, to break it, one of the students timidly raised his hand and spoke about himself. Another awkward silence, and then another raised hand. After that, the hands rose faster. And not once did Rogers insist that anyone speak.
free approach
After that, he told the class that he had brought with him a lot of materials — photocopies, brochures, articles, books, and gave us a list of books recommended for reading. Not once did he make it clear that he expected students to read or do anything else. As far as I remember, he only had one request. Would any of the students wish to place this material in a special room assigned to the students of our course? Two students immediately volunteered. He also said that he had with him tape recordings of psychotherapy sessions, as well as cassettes with feature films. This caused a great stir, and the students asked if they could watch and listen to them, and Dr. Rogers replied, «Of course.» Then the students agreed on how best to do it. They expressed a desire to turn on the tape recorder and find a movie projector, which they soon did.
This was followed by four hard, useless sessions. It seemed that during this period the group did not move anywhere. The students spoke randomly, saying whatever came to their mind. It all seemed chaotic, pointless, just a waste of time. One student began to discuss some aspect of Rogers’ philosophy, and another, completely oblivious to it, led the group in another direction; and the third, completely ignoring both, began to discuss something completely different. Few attempts were made from time to time to discuss things in order, but for the most part everything that happened in the classroom was chaotic and aimless. The teacher listened to everyone with the same attention and kindness. He did not consider the performances of some students to be correct, and others to be incorrect.
The group was not ready for such an absolutely free approach. They didn’t know what to do next. With irritation and bewilderment, they demanded that the teacher play the usual traditional role, that he authoritatively announce to us what is right and what is not, what is good and what is bad. Didn’t they come from afar to learn this from the oracle itself? Aren’t they lucky? Will they not be taught the right theory and practice by the great man himself, the founder of the teaching that bears his name? The notebooks were open in advance, waiting for the crucial moment when the oracle would announce the most important thing, but the notebooks for the most part remained untouched.
The strange thing, however, was that from the very beginning, even in anger, the members of the group felt their unity; and outside of class, they felt uplifted and excited, because even when they were in such an irritated state, they communicated with each other in a way that they had never been in any other class, and perhaps like never before. The group was united by a common, unusual experience. In Rogers’ classes, they said what they thought; the words were not taken from books and did not reflect the thoughts of a teacher or some other authority. These were their own thoughts, emotions and feelings; and this process brought with it liberation and uplift.
In this atmosphere of freedom, which they did not expect and for which they were not ready, students spoke in a way that students rarely do. During this time, the teacher received many blows, and it seemed to me that they often hit the target. Although he was the source of our irritation, we felt, oddly enough, strong sympathy for him, because it is hardly possible to be angry with a person who treats the feelings and thoughts of others with such sympathy and attention. We all felt that there was some minor misunderstanding, and when it was overcome and corrected, everything would be fine again. But our teacher, who outwardly seemed so soft, was adamant as steel. It seemed that he did not understand the situation, and if he did, he showed stubbornness and rigidity and did not want to change. Therefore, our «tug of war» continued. We all counted on Rogers, and Rogers counted on us. One of the students remarked to general approval: “The center of our learning is Rogers, not the students. We came to learn from Rogers.»
Encouragement of thinking
Another student found that Rogers was influenced by Kilpatrick and Dewey. Taking this as a starting point, he, in his opinion, understood the goal that Rogers was striving for. He believed that Rogers wants students to think in an original and creative way, so that they think deeply about themselves, hoping that this can lead to a change in personality in the sense that Dewey puts into this term: a restructuring of worldview, attitudes, values, behavior . It would be a real restructuring of past experience, it would be a real learning. Of course, he did not want the course to end with an examination of textbook and lecture material, followed by the traditional qualifying semester assessment, which usually means «pass and forget» (It should be noted that Dr. Rogers did not express his consent, He was not in the habit of responding to student speeches, unless, of course, they were addressed directly to him, and even in this case he did not always answer. His main task, it seemed to me, was simply to listen to the student with sympathy and understanding) . Almost from the beginning of the course, Rogers expressed his conviction that no one can teach anyone anything. Thinking begins at the fork in the road, as the student argued, this famous dilemma was put forward by Dewey. When we reach a fork and do not know which direction to take to get to the right place, then we begin to analyze the situation. Thinking starts right at this moment.
Kilpatrick also sought out original thinking from his students and also rejected tedious textbook learning. Instead, he brought forward important issues for discussion, which aroused great interest, and at the same time led to great changes in personality. Why can’t groups or individual students propose problems of this kind for discussion? (One student made a list of such problems, copied it and distributed it to others, but no practical follow-up followed).
In this regard, it may be appropriate to give another example. For the first session, Rogers brought tape recordings of psychotherapy sessions to class. He explained that he felt uncomfortable in the role of a teacher, and therefore came «with material», and the recordings give him some confidence. One student kept asking him to play these tapes, and after a lot of pressure from the whole group, he turned them on, but did so reluctantly. According to general feedback, despite the requests of students, he played these records for an hour during the entire class. Undoubtedly, Rogers preferred to have students record their own actual sessions rather than listen to something that could only interest them purely academically. Rogers listened carefully to this and said, «I see you like this idea a lot?» They didn’t come back to it again. If I remember correctly, the next student didn’t pay attention to what was being suggested and brought up a completely new topic, as they had done before.
At times in class, a proposal under discussion aroused intense interest, and students began to more actively demand that Rogers take on the traditional role of teacher. At such moments, Rogers received quite frequent and sensitive «hit», and I think I saw him bend a little under their hail. (He denied this privately.) During the class, one student suggested that Rogers lecture for one hour and that we have a general discussion for the second. Apparently, this proposal was in line with Rogers’ plans. He said that he had an unpublished article with him that we could take and read on our own. But the student objected that they were not the same thing. At the same time, the personality of the author will not be felt, we will not hear those accents, intonations, emotions — those nuances that give meaning and special significance to words. Rogers then asked the students if that was what they wanted. They answered: «Yes.» He read for over an hour. After the lively sarcastic exchanges we’ve become accustomed to, this was undoubtedly something far worse; the lecture was boring and sleepy. This incident put an end to all further requests to lecture us. Once, regretting this episode (“It is better and more forgiving when the students demand it themselves”), he said: “You asked me to give a lecture. Of course, I am the source of knowledge, but what is the point of my lecturing? I have a huge amount of material, copies of any lectures, articles, books, tape recordings, films.
By the fifth lesson, quite definite shifts had taken place, it was obvious. The students talked to each other and did not address Rogers. Students demanded to be listened to and wanted to be heard. What used to be a collection of insecure, stuttering, shy people became an interacting group, a whole new cohesive unity, operating in a special way, whose members were capable of such discussions and reflections that no other group could reproduce, nor repeat. The teacher also took part, but his role, although more important than any other in the group, to some extent merged with the group, and it was the group itself, and not the teacher, that became the center, the basis of activity.
What caused this? I can only guess about this. I think what happened is that for four sessions, the students could not believe that the teacher would abandon his traditional role. They kept thinking that he would be offering tasks, that he would be the center of everything that was going on, and that he would manage the group. It took four sessions for the students to realize that they were deluded, that the teacher had come to them with nothing but his own personality; if they want something to happen, then it is they who should be responsible for the content of what happens. This situation was, of course, quite unpleasant and challenging. It is they who must speak out and be responsible for all the consequences. In this joint process, students came to a common opinion, allowed exceptions, expressed agreement and disagreement. In any case, they as individuals, their deep selves were involved in this, and this situation led to the birth of this specific, unique group, this new unity.
The Importance of Acceptance
As you may know, Rogers believes that if a person is accepted, accepted completely, and in such acceptance there is no rational criticism, but only sympathy and sympathy, then the individual can come to terms with himself, have the courage to put aside his «protections» and turn to my real self. I saw it happen. During the first attempts at communication, gaining a modus vivendi (way of life) in the group, isolated cases of the exchange of feelings, emotions and ideas were noted; but after the fourth lesson and beyond, the members of this group, by chance joined together, became closer and their true selves appeared. During the interaction, there were cases of insight, illumination and mutual understanding, which caused almost awe. They were what I think Rogers would call «moments of psychotherapy,» those fruitful moments when you see a person’s soul unfold before you in all its breathtaking grandeur; and after that, an almost reverent silence engulfs the class. And each member of the group was wrapped in warmth and participation, bordering on mysticism. I myself (and I’m sure others too) have never experienced anything like this. It was training and psychotherapy; speaking of psychotherapy, I do not mean the treatment of an illness, but what could be called a healthy change in a person, an increase in his flexibility, openness, desire to listen to others. In the process, we all felt more uplifted, freer, more receptive to ourselves and others, more open to new ideas and tried very hard to understand and accept.
Our world is imperfect, and since the members of the group differed from each other, there were manifestations of hostility. But in this situation, each blow somehow softened, the sharp edges seemed to be smoothed out. With undeserved insults, the students switched to something else, and the blow did not reach the goal. Personally, some of the students annoyed me at first, but as I got to know them better, I began to accept and respect them. When I tried to understand what happened, the thought came to my mind: when you get close to a person, perceive his thoughts, emotions, feelings, he becomes not only understandable, but also good and pleasant. Some of the more aggressive individuals said more than they should, more than they were supposed to, but the group itself eventually made them feel their will, not by making rules, but simply by their own existence. Therefore, all its members (unless they were sick or completely immune) in this respect more or less easily adapted to what was expected of them. The problem of aggressive, dominant and neurotic types was not too acute, but still, if we evaluate strictly, quantitatively, measuring the time on the clock, it turns out that not a single occupation was free from empty talk and wasting time. But at the same time, the longer I followed the process, the more I became convinced that perhaps these losses of time were necessary. Perhaps this is how a person learns best. Now that I look back on all this experience, I am absolutely certain that it would not have been possible to learn so much, or so well and thoroughly, in a traditional classroom setting. If we accept Dewey’s definition that learning is the reconstruction of experience, how can a person learn anything better than not involving his whole self, his personality, his deepest motives, emotions, attitudes and evaluations in this process? No set of facts and evidence, no matter how logically and consistently presented, can even slightly compare with this method.
During this training, I watched how tough, inflexible, dogmatic people, in just a few weeks, right before my eyes, turned into understanding, sympathetic and largely tolerant people. I have seen neurotic, compulsive people relax and become more receptive to themselves and others. For example, one student who made a particularly strong impression on me because of this change told me when I mentioned it, “It’s true. I feel less constrained, more open to the world. And because of that, I like myself better. I don’t think I’d have learned so much anywhere else.» I have seen shy people become less shy and aggressive people become more sensitive and reserved.
Some might say that this learning process was purely emotional, but I would say that it was not at all like that. This process had significant intellectual content. But it was important and significant for a person in the sense that it was significant for him personally. In fact, one student raised this very question. “Should we,” he asked, “only concern ourselves with emotions? Doesn’t intelligence play a role? I in turn asked him, “Is there any student who has studied and thought so much in preparation for any other course?”
The answer was obvious. We spent many hours preparing, the room reserved for us was occupied until 10 pm, and many left at that time only because the watchman wanted to lock the building. The students listened to tapes, watched films, but most of all they talked, talked, talked. In a traditional course, the teacher lectures and indicates what needs to be prepared and learned, students obediently write it down in a notebook, take an exam and feel good or bad depending on its result; and in almost all cases this is all; the laws of forgetting quickly and inexorably begin to operate. In the Rogers course, students read and reflected in class and outside of class. Not a teacher, but they themselves chose from what was read and thought out what was meaningful to them.
I should note that this non-directive teaching method was not 100% successful. Three or four students found the very idea unacceptable. Even at the end of the course, although almost everyone became supporters of this method, one student, as far as I knew, was extremely negative, and the other very critical. They wanted the teacher to supply them with an already established intellectual product that they could memorize and then reproduce on the exam. Then they would be sure that they had learned what was needed. As one student said, “If I had to report what I learned, what would I say?” Of course, this was much more difficult than with the traditional method, if at all possible.
Rogers’ method involved freedom, fluidity, openness, and tolerance. A student might start an interesting conversation, be picked up by a second student, or a third student might take us in a different direction, bringing up a personal issue that the class was not interested in, and we all felt irritated. But it was like life itself, flowing like a river, seemingly meaningless, always carrying new water, flowing on and on, and no one knows what will happen the next minute. There was anticipation, readiness, liveliness in it, it seemed to me that it was as close to life itself as it can be achieved in the classroom. This method can frighten an authoritarian person who believes in carefully sorted facts; in such classes, he does not receive any support, but is faced only with openness, variability, incompleteness.
New technique
I think that the excitement and excitement so characteristic of our group was caused mainly by this incompleteness. Rogers’ students could be recognized even in the dining room by their lively conversations and desire to always be together. Sometimes, if there was not a large enough table, they would sit in rows of twos and threes, holding the plates on their laps. As Rogers himself said, there is no end to this process. He himself never makes any generalizations (contrary to all the traditional laws of learning). Issues remain unresolved and issues raised in class remain in a state of discussion and progress. In an effort to come to an agreement, students come together, wanting to understand and find a final solution. There is no completeness even in the assessments. Evaluation means some kind of ending, but Dr. Rogers does not put them, the student himself proposes the evaluation, and since he does it himself, even this sign of completion remains incomplete, open, unfinished. In addition, because of the freedom in the classroom, everyone contributes a part of himself to them, he does not answer according to the textbook, holding on to the handrails, but relying on his individuality, he communicates with the others at the level of his true «I». That is why closeness, warmth and unity are created, in contrast to the usual course with its impersonal topics of classes.
Perhaps the description of many good deeds will allow me to reveal this feeling of closeness. One student invited the group to her home for a picnic. Another student, a priest from Spain, loved the whole group so much that he was going to write a story about what happens to all of its members after they part. Members of the group, who were interested in the issues of counseling students, gathered separately. One member of the group arranged for us to visit a psychiatric clinic for children and adults, and also helped us to become acquainted with Dr. Lindsley’s experimental work with psychotic patients. Members of the group brought tapes and books to supplement our library materials. The spirit of kindness and friendliness manifested itself in everything, and as strongly as it happens only in very rare cases. I have never experienced anything like it in any of the many, many courses I have taken. In this regard, it should be noted that the members of the group were brought together purely by chance and differed significantly in social status and age.
I believe that what I have described here is a truly creative development of a teaching method that radically distinguishes it from the old one. I have no doubt that the new method is capable of touching a person, making him freer, more receptive, more versatile. I myself have tested its effectiveness. I think that non-directive learning has such profound implications that even its proponents may not yet be fully aware of at the present time. I believe it has a meaning far beyond the classroom; it is significant for all spheres of life where there is communication between people and their coexistence.
If this method is used in educational practice, it involves the widespread use of discussions, research and experiments. It presents opportunities for a fresh and original look at the problem of methods, since, in its theoretical approaches, practice and methodology, it is radically different from the old methods. It seems to me that this approach needs to be tested in all areas of education — in elementary, high school, college — wherever people come together to learn new things and enrich old knowledge. At this stage, we should not be particularly concerned about some of the shortcomings of the method and its inconsistency with the requirements, since it has not yet been fully developed and we still do not know everything that needs to be known about it. Like any innovation, it begins with difficulties, and we hate to abandon the old. Traditions, authority, conventions reinforce and maintain the old; and even we ourselves are its product. However, if we look at learning as a reconstruction of experience, does this not mean that the individual must rebuild himself? He must do it himself by reorganizing the very depths of his «I», values, relationships, his individuality. Is there a method that could better change the individual: teach him to share his ideas and feelings with others in communication, break down the barriers that separate people in this world where, in order to be mentally and physically healthy, a person must learn to be part of humanity.
Personal Teaching Experience Recounted to Dr. Rogers a Year Later by Samuel Tenenbaum, Ph.D.
“I feel compelled to write to you about my first teaching experience after being exposed to your way of thinking. You may or may not know that I had a fear of teaching. Since our joint work, I began to realize more clearly what the difficulty was for me. It is, first of all, in my idea of the role of the teacher that I need to play — the role of the author, director and producer of the play. interested, non-contact, and I keep muttering and mumbling until I completely lose my temper. The sentences do not go anywhere, they sound clumsy, time moves slowly, slowly and completely freezes. That was the nightmare I imagined. I suppose some of this happens to every teacher, but I used to combine them all in myself and start classes with a bad feeling, in great agitation, not myself.
And now about my experience. I was asked to teach two summer sessions at Yeshiva College of Education, but I had a perfect alibi. I couldn’t because I was leaving for Europe. But I was asked if I could then give a short course of only 14 lessons in June that would not interfere with the trip? I had no reason to refuse, and I agreed. I no longer wanted to shy away from this situation and, moreover, was determined to master it once and for all. If I don’t like it (and I haven’t taught for almost 10 years), then I’ll buy something. And if I like it, I’ll learn something too. If I have to suffer, then it is better now, when the course is short and small in time.
You know that Kilpatrick and Dewey have greatly influenced my opinion of learning. But now I had another powerful source of influence — you. When I first met my students, I did something I had never done before. I was sincere in my feelings. Instead of feeling that the teacher should know and the students should learn from him, I confessed my insecurities, doubts, hesitation and ignorance. As I sort of debunked my role as a teacher to my students, my real self was more freely expressed and I found myself speaking easily and even inspiredly. By «inspired» I mean that the ideas that came to my mind while I was speaking gave rise to new, as I thought, successful ideas in me.
Another important difference: it is true that, since I was influenced by Kilpatrick’s methods, I welcomed the widest possible discussions, but as I now see, I still wanted students to know the material of lectures and textbooks recommended to them, and waited this from them. And worse than that, I now realize that although I welcomed the discussions, what I wanted above all was that, after what had been said and done, the final conclusions of the students would be consistent with my own opinion. And as a result, the discussions were not real in the sense that they were not open, free and educational; the questions were not real questions in the sense that they did not provoke thought, they were all predetermined. This means that I knew exactly which answers were good, and sometimes the only correct ones. As a result, I came to the class with my materials, and my students were really the means by which I managed the situation in the lesson to insert the material that I found desirable.
During this last course I did not yet have the courage to give up my own material altogether, but this time I really listened to my students; I treated them with understanding and sympathy. Although I spent hour after hour preparing for each class, I found that I never consulted a single note from the vast material with which I came to class. I gave the students complete freedom, not restricting anyone to any particular direction, I did not mind the widest deviations and followed the students wherever they led.
I remember discussing this with a prominent teacher, and he said, as it seemed to me, disappointed and disapproving: «But you, of course, insist that students think well.» I quoted from William James (W. James (1842-1910) — American psychologist and philosopher. — Approx. ed.), who really said that a person is a drop of reason in an ocean of emotions. I told him that I was more interested in what I would call the «third dimension» — the realm of the students’ feelings.
I can’t say that I followed your example completely, Dr. Rogers, because I did express my opinion and sometimes, unfortunately, turned to the lecture. I think this is bad, because as soon as the teacher expresses his authoritative opinion, students usually stop thinking and try to guess what exactly the teacher means, and offer an answer that he might like in order to earn approval in his eyes. If I had to do it again, I would do it less. But I tried very hard and I think I succeeded to a great extent in awakening in each student a sense of dignity, respect and self-acceptance. The last thing I intended to do was check, evaluate, and mark them.
And the result for me — and that is why I am writing to you — was the acquisition of a completely new experience, which is difficult to convey using ordinary language. I myself cannot fully explain it, but only feel grateful that this happened to me. During the course I conducted, I felt what I experienced while studying with you. I found myself loving these students in a way that I have never loved any other group, and they — as they themselves expressed it in their graduation theses — began to feel more warmth, kindness and sympathy towards each other. Orally and in writing, they reported how touched they were, how much they learned, how good they felt. For me, this was an unforgettable new experience, and I was shocked and captivated by it. I think I’ve had students in the past who treated me with respect and admiration, but never did teaching feel so warm and close to me. By the way, following your example, I avoided making any specific requirements for preparing for classes.
Evidence that all of the above was not the result of «biased perception» was the feedback from students outside of class. The students spoke so well of me that the teachers of the faculty wanted to come to the classes. And most importantly, at the end of the course, my students wrote a letter to Dean Benjamin Fine, in which they spoke about me in the best possible way. And the dean, in turn, wrote me about it.
To say that I am shocked by what happened is to express my feelings very weakly. I have been teaching for many years, but have never experienced anything even remotely similar to what happened. As far as I am personally concerned, I have never shown my full self in class with such fullness, depth and involvement. Next, I ask if there is or can be in traditional learning, with its focus on recommended materials, examinations, assessments, a place for the emerging person with his deep and diverse needs, with his desire to fulfill himself. But this takes us too far. I can only inform you of what happened and say that I am grateful and humbled by what I have experienced. I would like you to know this because you have again expanded and enriched my life.
That this was not the only experience of this kind with Dr. Tenenbaum is shown by a quotation from another letter of his which I received many months later. He writes: “With the other group, which I taught after the first, the same relationship developed, only they were more pronounced, since, it seems to me, I became better at using the method and, I hope, became more experienced. In this second group there was the same emancipation of a person, the same revival and excitement, the same warmth and the same mystery that attracts a person when he «sheds off his old skin.» Students have told me that in other classes they usually meet eyes, drawn to each other, as if they are one and separated from the rest, as if they are connected together by special experiences. In this second group, I also found that the students became very close, so that at the end of the semester they agreed on annual meetings. They said that somehow they would like to keep their feelings from the experience and not lose each other. In addition, they talked about the strong and deep personal changes that had taken place in them — in their worldview, in the system of values, in feelings, in relation to themselves and others.