Case Studies of Reflective Teacher Education

Tcwhiny & T~~uder khm~rron, Printed in Great Britam

Vol 9, No. 4. pp. 431-438,

1993

0742-051X:93 S6.00 + 000 Prrpamon Press LLd

REFLECTIVE

TEACHER

EDUCATION:

TECHNIQUE

OR EPISTEMOLOGY?

HUGH

MUNBY

and TOM
Ontario,

RUSSELL
Canada

Queen’s

University,

AN ESSAY-REVIEW

OF REFLECTIVE TEACHER CASES AND CRITIQUES
NY: State University

EDUCATION:

Linda Valli (Ed.) (1992). Albany,

of New York Press (ISBN O-7914-

1131

1)

“Where

do you come from?”

said the Red Queen. “And where are you going?” Through the Looking Glass

Lewis Carroll,

Rejective Teacher Education: Cases and Critiques consists of two parts, and could well be described as two books in one. Part I, “Case Studies of Reflective Teacher Education,” presents multi-author descriptive accounts of seven preservice programs by individuals who have helped to develop and sustain the programs. Part II, “Critiques of Reflective Teacher Education,” contains six single-author chapters that respond in very different ways to the seven case studies. Editor Linda Valli provides an introduction and an afterword and is a co-author of one of the case studies. This is an important collection. The seven teacher education programs include a variety of approaches that demonstrate that teacher education is responding to research knowledge. The six critical chapters in the second part generally present clear yet disquieting views of the many important problems that still confront teacher education. The title of the collection will attract an audience that may be disappointed, for the collection confirms that “reflective teacher education” does not exist in any coherent sense.

Each of the seven programs has unique assumptions and organizing principles, some working with little more than a common-sense definition of reflection that seems to come naturally to all teacher educators. The six critiques similarly convey unique senses of “reflection.” This collection will certainly stimulate productive thinking about issues and tensions within teacher education, but there is no shared sense of “reflection” to give direction to future developments. In her Introduction, Valli ascribes the growth of interest in reflection to a variety of sources: the fragmentation of knowledge by processproduct research, the increasing dominance of cognitivism over behaviorism, and the press for the empowerment of teachers. “The convergence of interest in teacher thinking and reflectivity by scholars ranging from cognitive psychologists to critical theorists suggests a broad based and long-term commitment to understanding and fostering reflective practice” (p. xiv). By suggesting that reflection is itself a conceptual orientation to teacher education, and by using “inquiryoriented” as a synonym for “reflective,” Valli

This essay is from the 1992-1995 research project, “Case study research in teachers’ professional knowledge” (Hugh Munby and Tom Russell, Principal Investigators), funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors acknowledge the contribution of David Boote, Research Assistant, to the development of this essay. 431

432

HUGH MUNBY

and TOM RUSSELL

establishes a base broad enough to include all seven case studies. Yet this move also ensures that there will be no coherent theme or perspective, and as she notes, the orientations range from views of good teaching to epistemological criteria (p. xviii). The orientations discussed include Kennedy’s (1989) two conceptions of good teaching, van Manen’s (1977) three levels of reflection, Doyle’s (1990) five themes, and the three perspectives on reflection developed by Grimmett, MacKinnon, Erickson, and Riecken ( 1990). While these and other attempts to classify approaches to teacher education and to reflection arc usefully reviewed in Valli’s Introduction. we found the idea of a conceptual orientation too lightly treated to assure us that reflection was not simply an appealing term around which well-intentioned developments in teacher education programs might be articulated. We hoped that our unease would be resolved in the case studies. These, as Valli notes, “are characterized by a commitment to curricular reform around a conception of good teaching. They are further united by agreeing that this concept must embody a reflective orientation to practice, an orientation which emphasizes the knowledge. disposition, and analytic skills needed to make good decisions about complex classroom phenomena” (p. xii). We have chosen the issue “technique or epistemology” as a focus for our review to highlight a prominent tension within teacher education. It has always been easy to recommend or develop new strategies that give an appearance of significant change; teacher educators and researchers often appear to be suggesting new techniques to teachers. It can never be taken for granted that a change in technique represents a new set of assumptions about the nature of knowledge in a field.

An Overview

of the Seven Programs

It must have been difficult to assemble detailed descriptions of seven programs so that they fitted into 130 pages. We assume that Valli managed the task by providing contributors with uniform directions about the material to be included: write from a faculty perspective; describe such matters as the history, guiding framework, and elements of each program; and

speak to program evaluation. To a certain degree, the uniformity begins to mask the differences as one reads the cases. There is coursework and fieldwork: students are encouraged to reflect using techniques such as journals; there are problems in implementation; there are partnerships between school and university supervisors. and tensions, too. There is varying evidence of program success, including varying amounts of research published from studies of the programs. Them are no studies comparing graduates of these programs with graduates of former programs. There is one cohort study, and the teaching of the three cohorts is examined-this is the closest the book’s material gets to examining the impact of these programs on school children. We started to yearn for accounts from students or graduates of these programs just to relieve the tedium and to hear fresh voices. Indeed, we would advise readers to do as we did: read several cases and then delve into the critiques. returning to the cases as necessary. The seven cases are drawn from the University of New Hampshire, the University of Florida, the University of Maryland, Kent State University, Michigan State University, the Catholic University of America, and the University of Houston. Valli provides no indication of how these seven were selected. The theme of the University of New Hampshire program, developed in 1974, is “Communitics of Inquiry, Communities of Support” and the emphasis is upon inquiry, both philosophical and experiential. This is illustrated in three program components that are directed toward the concept of the teacher as reflective decision maker. Philosophical inquiry in the coursework, and the collaborative supervisory teams at internship sites are designed to enhance the sense of community that the authors believe is insufficiently recognized in teacher preparation. The University of Florida’s PROfessional ‘TEACHer (PROTEACH) program was built in 1984 upon the Childhood Education Program, with its emphasis upon humanistic education. The two main forces behind the change to reflective education were a call for programmatic emphasis in teacher education and a desire to have students master the expanding research knowledge about teaching. The emphasis is upon seven criteria of reflective judgment. The distinctive features of the University of

Reflective Teacher

Education:

Technique

or Epistemology?

433

Maryland’s program are emphases upon selectivity of candidates, the use of cohort groups, a conception of teaching practice as teaching laboratories, and the development of students’ knowledge base for reflection. Current research on learning to teach is introduced along with research on teaching and on school effects. Kent State University’s program for academically talented students is designed to respond to the need to attract and retain high quality teachers. The program is structured around information about the academically talented rather than around a conception of reflection, and the program emphasizes the use of cohort groups and individualization. The Multiple Perspectives Program at Michigan State University emerged from a 1977 review that found existing programs to be fragmented. The program strives to give equal emphasis to academic outcomes, personal responsibility, social responsibility, and social justice. The theoretical orientation is Zimpher and Howey’s (1987) technical, clinical, personal, and critical competencies. The program at the Catholic University of America dates from 1986, when a grant from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement provided support for change. The program’s conceptual framework for reflection incorporates van Manen’s (1977) technical, interpretive, and critical levels of reflection, Berlak and Berlak’s (198 1) categorization of dilemmas in terms of control, curriculum, and society, and Schwab’s (1973) four commonplaces. At the University of Houston, the Reflective Inquiry Teacher Education program succeeds the well-known competency-based program. Several authors are cited as representing the ideal of reflection in this program, from Clift, Houston, and Pugach (1990) to Zeichner (1981-82). The concept of curriculum negotiation was significant to the development of the program, given its departure from a competency-based approach.

The Critiques Something of the significance of the critiques comes very early Role of Reflection in Learning second sentence Calderhead and pointedness in the first, “The to Teach.” In its observes, “Sur-

prisingly, teacher education programs seem rarely to be influenced, to any substantial extent, by an understanding of how student teachers learn to teach” (p. 139). While Calderhead acknowledges the useful descriptions of constraints encountered in the design and implementation of the programs, his interest is in the absence of a common conception of reflection underlying them, and in a divergence of opinion about how program goals are best achieved. He is skeptical that the reflective techniques of the programs have predictable effects on students, given the variety of their beliefs and expectations and the many routes that their experiences in schools can take. Calderhead sees two major impediments to developing reflective practice: a lack of knowledge about student teachers’ professional growth; and a mismatch between the goals of reflective practice, and the values and accepted practices of the institutions where student teachers find themselves. Preservice programs, he suggests, may not be the optimal place for developing reflective teachers, a process he thinks may be better addressed 10 or 15 years into a career. Calderhead’s views are refreshing to read after the cases, but they seem to lack development. He offers no unifying account of reflection nor of a route for getting there. While he is correct to be concerned for the impact of institutional mores upon the professional growth of teachers, he has not helped us understand how these might interact. Finally, his views about timing are speculation. It would have been more useful to note that the programs themselves are long ones and that we might learn more from extended cohort studies of the sort conducted around the Michigan State program. Sparks-Langer’s critique, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cognitive, Critical, and Narrative Approaches to Teacher Reflection,” begins by acknowledging that it is difficult to identify an exact meaning for “teacher reflection.” Her strategy for critiquing the cases is to develop three approaches to reflection-cognitive, critical, and narrative-and then to apply these to three aspects of each program. The cognitive approach encompasses the work of Shulman and colleagues on knowledge, studies of experts and novices, schema theory, and constructivism. Where this approach attends to how teachers make decisions, the critical approach is con-

434

HUGH

MUNBY

and TOM

RUSSELL

cerned with the “what” of such decisions “by examining experiences, values and goals of teachers in terms of their sociopolitical implications” (p. 149). This approach clearly originates in critical theory and critical pedagogy and is concerned for how knowledge is socially constructed. For Sparks-Langer, the narrative approach emphasizes “teachers’ own descriptions of the personal circumstances under which they make decisions” (p. 151) while it may include aspects of the other approaches. The idea of craft knowledge and the work of Connelly and Clandinin (1990) are cited here. Schon’s (1983, 1987) work is also mentioned with specific reference to the reflective conversation. These three approaches are then applied to each program’s knowledge base, definition of reflection, and inquiry activities. At times, the application seems uneven because the three approaches are not exclusive and because many programs present aspects of all three approaches in different amounts and in different ways. However. Sparks-Langer’s analysis points to some interesting differences: The University of Maryland’s program is predominantly cognitive, and a narrative approach is found only in the programs of the University of New Hampshire, the University of Florida, and Kent State (though here just in the inquiry activities). The critique, then, is somewhat unsatisfying and the point of using a less than clearly delineated category system becomes lost. Interestingly, SparksLanger makes her commitment to narrative forms explicit in the conclusion but fails to point to the obvious weakness in the case studies that such a perspective would reveal: As we have noted, the case studies are from the perspective of faculty; they arc not narrative (in SparksLanger’s sense) nor do they provide insight into how students experience the programs. Zeichner’s chapter opens with the observation that “the term reflection has become a slogan around which teacher educators around the world have rallied in the name of teacher education reform” (p. 161). He develops four “historically based traditions” of reflective teaching and, like Sparks-Langer, uses them to comment on the seven cases. The four traditions are the academic tradition [represented by Shulman (1986) and Buchmann (1984) and ideas about pedagogical reasoning] which emphasizes teachers’ deliberations about subject matter; the

social efficiency tradition and its concern for the skills and competencies of teachers that have been shown to correlate with desired pupil outcomes; the developmentalist tradition as exemplified by the constructivist approach adopted by Duckworth (1987); and the social reconstructionist tradition which is rooted in critical and feminist approaches. Zeichner adds to these four a “generic tradition” which appears to be a placeholder for reflective teaching advocacy that is unaccompanied by a systematic account of reflection. When Zeichner applies this category scheme to the seven cases, he finds that none expresses any single tradition purely, but that all cases represent a preponderance of a tradition of social efficiency that is evidenced by the opportunities they give for students to reflect on research information. Also, he’ notes a relative absence of an academic tradition in which specific attention is given to subject matter. Zeichner ends with the observation that “stating a commitment to reflective inquiry is not a sufficient basis for defining a conceptual orientation for a teacher education program and that the theoretical perspectives associated with several of these programs remain to be articulated” (p. 173). We found this statement to be under-developed. It left us without a clear sense of what Zeichner means by a conceptual orientation and by a sufficient basis for defining one. It is not clear to us that Valli’s collection profits from a critique so similar to Sparks-Langer’s, especially when there seems little in Zeichner’s critique to justify his use of “tradition.” His observations about the programs might well have been made without using the classification system he imposes. Goodman’s contribution, “Feminist pedagogy as a Foundation for Reflective Teacher Education Programs,” is refreshing for providing a welcome new direction to the critiques. Instead of considering the detail of the cases and categorizing them, he takes the reader on a course that shows the breadth of scholarship in feminist pedagogy and gives the reader a clear sense of the potential of adopting a well-developed and consistent theoretical approach to inquiry into teacher education. Goodman’s misgiving about the seven cases is that they all are based on a broad view of reflection as “thinking in complex ways” without providing the reader

Reflective

Teacher

Education:

Technique

or Epistemology?

435

with a clear formulation of each program’s theoretical base. His critique demonstrates that feminist pedagogy can respond to the goal of helping preservice teachers understand what it means to be a teacher, by unravelling how the history of schooling and the institution of school have defined and controlled the role. For Goodman, feminist pedagogy offers a theoretically coherent ground for reflecting on interpersonal relations, the nature of knowledge, and student learning. It also offers a vehicle for understanding the masculine rationality that pervades such educational values as objectivity, competition, and standardization. Goodman argues that patriarchal values have contrived to reduce the prestige of teacher education within the universities. Programs have consequently focused on the mastery of skills and school knowledge rather than on an academically and professionally stimulating and challenging curriculum that would take the education of teachers seriously. Richert’s “Voice and Power in Teaching and Learning to Teach” can be read as taking up part of Goodman’s challenge. Rather than viewing voice as “the literal speaking of experience by teachers” (p. 189) Richert defines voice as descriptions of what teachers do, think, feel, and believe. Adopting a constructionist view of knowledge guides her to focus on two elements: voice and speaking one’s truth, and voice and being heard. Richert examines the cases for opportunities for allowing students to speak, to engage in reflective dialogue, and so to develop their knowledge. Her finding that the opportunities are present is perhaps not as interesting as her argument about voice and being heard. Here, Richert takes a view that teachers are not heard because they do not speak, and “they don’t speak because they are part of a culture that silences them” (p. 193). An aim for a reflective program is to help students overcome these limits of a culturally bounded rationality. In her conclusion, Richert acknowledges that this culture may persistently act against any programmatic attempt to give teachers voice. The final critique takes the reader on a quite different path. In “The Essentialist Tension in Reflective Teacher Education.” Stone seeks to uncover elements of the tensions between modernism and postmodernism in the seven teacher education programs. She approaches the task by working at essentialism-the theory that there is

one belief, theory, action, etc. that is the best possible-and by showing that it acts against innovation at both the program level (because essentialism dominates western thinking) and at the individual level (because indeterminancy and uncertainty accompany attempts to change beliefs and thinking). Some of the essentialist tensions she reveals in the seven programs are particularly interesting. For example, the University of Florida exhibits a “tension of language” in which the modernist language of fixed meanings, as in the terms “common principles” view of teaching,” pull against and “unified postmodernist ideas of raising questions (no answers), dialogue, and continual revision. A “tension of diversity” is found in the Michigan State University program, in which the modernist desire for certainty pulls against a postmodernist commitment inherent in the idea of multiple perspectives. And a “tension of power” is found in the Kent State program: The very notion of a program for academically able students is postmodern if its underlying worldview is criticized, but is modernist if it separates students and is thus seen as part of a given social order. Stone believes that postmodern reflection would look very different to modernist reflection and demonstrates this in a personal example in which the language and moves are, as she puts it, just “a bit fantastic” (p. 207). Indeed, the example teased us into thinking we had seen its point until we realized that in looking for a point we were practising modernist essentialism. We have noted that some of the more provocative ideas in these six critiques appear in their closing paragraphs, and Stone continues that pattern. She admits that the most important point is that it is unethical to “fail to take account of postmodernist insights [and so] to retain the educational status quo with its modern-shortcomings” (p. 211). The world view of sameness and certainty constructed by a few for their own ends is pernicious.

Valli’s Afterword Why is an Afterword required when the seven cases have had a full introduction and six full critiques? Valli opens on a false note, contending that despite differences, the critiques “accept the

436

HUGH MUNBY

and TOM RUSSELL

basic premise that reflection is a conceptual orientation” (p. 213). This is too simple an interpretation of the large epistemological differences between the foundations of the seven programs and, for example, the positions of Goodman, Richert, and Stone. Indeed, the section “The Paradigm Question Revisited” has a misleading title because fundamental paradigmatic and epistemological differences are not revisited. Instead, the section appears to be encouraging the reader to read reflection into any program that attempts to make its students thoughtful. Any promise that the concept might have had for conveying a distinctive epistemology of practice is lost; any hope that the concept might be free to conjure radically different perspectives is dashed. Instead, the section moves inexorably toward a clarion call for linguistic (modernist) essentialism, a call to specify “the type, purpose, and nature of reflective inquiry expected of prospective teachers” (p. 216). Inevitably, this leads into a section in which senses of reflection become a ranked typology: a taxonomy of six levels of reflection in the best modernist tradition. This is at odds with Goodman’s rejection of masculine rationality. It also sits uncomfortably with the significance Richert attaches to voice and personally constructed knowledge. As well, its implicit essentialism is blatantly antithetical to Stone’s postmodernism. The Afterword is no less than perplexing, missing exciting opportunities to show what has been accomplished by this collection of cases and critiques.

Technique,

Epistemology and the State of Teacher Education

The overall sense we have as we emerge from Valli’s text is bewilderment about this treatment of what is known and what remains unknown about reflective teacher education. To develop this perspective, we return to the theme announced by the title of this essay and explore why reflection has been treated as technique. When we do this, we find the book’s value to lie in how it signals the present state of teacher education. Despite Valli’s protests to the contrary, we remain convinced that the articulation of reflection in the programs represented in the text is

one of technique. To be sure, there is a sense in which one can refer to reflection as a conceptualization, but this is a low-level conceptualization (and certainly not a paradigm) because it fails to carry a distinctive epistemology as does, for example, cognitivism. Indeed, cognitivism seems to be the “home” for the versions of reflection evident in the cases and all but the final three critiques. Even though van Manen’s (1977) view of reflection derives from a different source, the Utrecht School, it seems transformed in the text until it fits the prevalent cognitivist approach of the programs and, to some extent, the book. A similar transformation has been wrought on Schiin’s (1983) reflection-in-action. His term is frequently replaced by “reflection” and the different epistemology for which he was striving evaporates. Although Schon’s (1983, 1987) books are cited frequently by Valli and her contributors, those who cite these works either ignore or are unaware of the fact that Schon was making major epistemological claims (Munby & Russell, 1989). This is the way in which this book’s portrayal of reflection is quickly reduced from epistemology to technique. To say that the pervasive sense of reflection marks a cognitivist concept is not to deprecate either reflection or cognitivism. The problem is not with cognitivism itself, although Stone might disagree with us. Rather, the problem is, as Calderhead observed, that we do not really know how teachers come to learn to teach. In this guise, “reflection” lacks a substantial base that recognizes this and explains why there is something peculiar and different about the knowledge that allows musicians to play, dancers to dance, and athletes to perform. The absence of a substantive epistemological plinth for reflection is not to be blamed on cognitivism. To explain the fad of reflection in teacher education, we must look elsewhere. For us, the misfortune of teacher education is its place in a society that is intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty. And although ambiguity and uncertainty are hallmarks of professional work like teaching, those who enter teacher education programs anticipate being told how to teach (in quite certain and unambiguous ways). As many, including Richert, have noted, these students have witnessed teaching from the outside and naturally seek to learn the smoother routines and their execution. It happens that we

Reflective Teacher

Education:

Technique

or Epistemology?

431

know something about expert thinking, and that we have good knowledge about several issues germane to teaching. But we do not, as a profession, have a good account of how one learns to teach. This is particularly evident in the harsher criticisms of beginning teachers who report that their first year of teaching prepared them for the profession far better than did their preservice programs. For those with academic rank in faculties and colleges of education, this is a hard message to heed and interpret. External and internal demands for certainty are the legacy of modernism. They are manifested in our tendency to code, classify, and count. They make those of us in teacher education particularly vulnerable to the glamour of terms such as “reflection.” It is not surprising to see the term reflection analyzed and classified. In this light, we understand that the structure and successes of programs reported in Valli’s book are not necessarily to be attributed to the conceptual power of reflection but to its political power. Neither are these programs in any way diminished by this description. The programs have considerable strengths on grounds other than the meaning of a word. Undoubtedly much of the useful teaching in these and other programs could and would persist if “reflection” were replaced by “analytical thought,” “deliberation,” or Valli’s own synonym, “inquiryoriented.” This leads us to conclude that Valli’s book is important for the way it marks the current condition of teacher education and our knowledge of it. By presenting descriptions of viable and various programs and by showing the range of intellectual resources upon which the programs build, Valli’s book marks the distance travelled in the last 15 years. Here the book reveals the not insignificant inroads that research on teaching and research on becoming a teacher have made into teacher education. By providing three critiques representing different and critical views, Valli implicitly marks the tensions that beset the field today. But the book fails to show the importance of opposing points of view and of embracing the ambiguity that the tensions engender. The question of “technique or epistemology” is neither addressed nor recognized. Goodman and Richert point to one potentially productive area of inquiry: Feminist peda-

gogy has significant potential for grounding teacher education theoretically, and it could conceivably be pressed toward yielding an account of the epistemology of practice. Especially powerful in Goodman’s critique is the understanding this viewpoint has of learning a craft within an institutional frame, of dealing with what Fenstermacher (1992) has called the systemics of school. “Voice” also has potential, as Richert shows, and it underscores Pajares’ (1992) view that belief may be “the single most important construct in educational research” (p. 329). As with the concept of reflection, promising approaches such as feminist pedagogy and voice need to be accompanied by a carefully articulated epistemology. Otherwise, they may fall prey to superficial categorizing and, consequently, to an uneasy implementation. Stone’s cautions against the idols of modernism are particularly germane for those who search for an epistemology of practice. Although imperfect, Valli’s book is important as an indication of the difficulties that attend genuine progress in a field of practical significance. References & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas #’ schooling. Methuen. M. (1984). The priority of knowledge and underin teaching. In L. Katz & J. Raths (Eds.), Admnces in teacher educntion (pp. 29-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clift. R., Houston, W. R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). (1990). Encouruqiny r@rctive practice in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-14.

Berlak, A., London: Buchmann, standing

Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Houston (Ed.). Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan. Duckworth. E. (1987). The haaina of tvonderful ideas. New York: Teachers College Press. 1 Fenstermacher, G. (1992, February). Where are M;e going? Who Gil lead us there? Presidential address to the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. Grimmett, P. P., MacKinnan, A. M., Erickson, G. L., & Riecken, T. J. (1990). Reflective practice in teacher education. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraying reflective practice in education (pp. 20-38). New York: Teachers College Press. Kennedy, M. (1989). Reflection and the problem of professional standards. Colioqu~, 2(2), l-6. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). Educating the reflective teacher: An essay review of two books by Donald Schon. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 11-80.

438

HUGH

MUNBY

and TOM

RUSSELL

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Reviews of Educafional Research, 62, 307-332. Schiin. D. (1983). The rqflrctitre pracfirionw. New York: Basic Books. SchGn, D. (1987). Educating the reffectioe practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. Scllool Reoiew, 81, 501~ 522.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educutionul Rc~.warc~hrr, 15(2), 4 14. van Manen, M. (1977). Linking the ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205 228. Zeichner, K. (1981-82). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher education. Interchanye, 12(4), 1 22. Zimpher, N., & Howey, K. (1987). Adapting supervisory practices to different orientations of teaching competence. Journal of Curriculum and Superoisim, 2. 101~ 127.