What is the role of education in bringing the gospel to societies where Jesus is either not known or not followed?

From India: The Integrated Learning Experience

Dr. Ken Gnanaken is the Executive Director of the  International Council of Higher Education . He also serves as Director of the ACTS Group of Institutions in India which includes primary and secondary schools, colleges and a private university, William Carey University in North East India. He teaches in universities in India and in other parts of the world on varied subjects such as management, environment, education, theology and philosophies.

Dr. Ken Gnanaken is the Executive Director of the International Council of Higher Education. He also serves as Director of the ACTS Group of Institutions in India which includes primary and secondary schools, colleges and a private university, William Carey University in North East India. He teaches in universities in India and in other parts of the world on varied subjects such as management, environment, education, theology and philosophies.

WCIU Journal: Education Topic

February 7, 2013

by Ken Gnanakan

Our modern education systems are mostly based in fragmented and disintegrated learning models. We study science, then history, move into philosophy and all these are in their compartments with little or no connection. In recent years, the relevance of these educational systems has come into question.
What is education?
Why are we doing what we are doing?
What kinds of products are we delivering?

What effect are our educational packages having on students within their own local contexts?
Are we really preparing men and women for effective service within their contexts?

Experts are questioning the traditional system figures must be poured, without consideration for what must happen inside. Some educators even made a parallel between traditional teaching and a packed suitcase—students pack in material into their suitcase and merely “unpack” for examinations. (Both John Dewey and A.N. Whitehead made such comparison.)

If examinations are based on reproducing lectures from classrooms, then preparation for such evaluation methods is purely dependent on rote learning. The smartest student is the one with the sharpest memory. While it may be required to memorize certain excerpts from poetry, scripture, or the classics, the problem is that there is no application of those passages to real life situations. It seems the most successful students within our current educational systems are those with the clearest reproduction of the notes and lectures.

Early African and Asian educational methods tended to be far more integrated and drawn from real life. Even when formal learning forms were employed, these traditional systems had clear objectives which followed a particular path. Traditions had to be preserved, harmony in community was to be sustained or religious practices were to be observed and passed on to the next generation. Some had very noble aims. For example, Confucius aimed to reform society and the government and his goals for education were to place those capable to serve in government in decisive roles. His system aimed at producing people of character, or “chun tzu”, by using observation, study and reflective thought. In the first chapter of the Analects Confucius asked, “Isn’t it a pleasure to study and practice what you have learned?” In a later saying in this chapter he commented: “If you would govern a state ... you must pay strict attention to business, be true to your word, be economical in expenditure and love the people.”

For good or bad, even Colonial educational objectives were aided by colonial policies, as familiar within Asia and Africa. Lord Thomas Macaulay, for instance, who served in the House of Commons and a member of the Supreme Council of India, presented his case to the British Parliament to produce a class of people who would be “interpreters” between the colonial rulers and the millions they governed. They were to be “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” There was no desire to educate the masses, only to raise up “Indian gentlemen” who would fall in line with colonial policies (Macaulay 1835).

Rather than attempting to provide education for everybody, the British colonialists chose to educate the chosen few who would “refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge” (Macaulay 1835). The goal was to propagate Western or even more specifcally British culture. A minority of Indians and Africans benefited from this policy and enjoyed the goodwill of the colonial rulers. Although this could be a negative insinuation, the reference to the power of education to accomplish stated goals is clearly illustrated.

Education Today

It seems that within our global context, the problem does not lay so much with the content of our educational models, but more with placing this content into an appropriate setting for real learning. Such a setting must be rooted in reality but sadly, most modern educational systems are found wanting. From childhood learning to higher levels of research study, most students are floundering with unfamiliar concepts firmly set in unfamiliar worlds. A child is immediately introduced to the alphabets or numbers, with no concern for how these relates to the life around them. Children are pushed into reading and writing, books and libraries and all this does not seem to connect with the real world.

Even our teachers have become frustrated by overloaded syllabi, course materials and the pressure of examinations that allow little time to enable critical thinking and application among their students. In fact, questions are often discouraged as the teachers themselves are not fully informed. No wonder some students ask, “why mathematics?” Or “why geography?” There is very little effort from teachers to set these subjects within a real life context. Haven’t many of us wondered the relevance of trigonometry and calculus and how it will be used within our life? Education will only become meaningful once the subject matter is integrated with the real life setting around us. This applies even more to the way biblical and theological subjects are taught, and in recent times these have become more and more cerebral.

In such a setting, it is encouraging to know that today’s educators are becoming interested in integrated learning. While most discussions focus on primary education, there is a growing interest in the interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum from higher education experts. Even higher levels of research are being encouraged to integrate the very fabric of socio-economic structures to make the learning more meaningful. I am encouraging researches to make every effort to show how their research applies to real life and will rejuvenate their own ministries.

It is shocking to review the state of theological education. Take for instance some dissertation titles such as “The Concept of Wheat and Tares in Matthew,” or “Jesus’ Response to Pontius Pilate’s Question,” or the countless theses on “Justification by Faith.” Not that these are bad in themselves, but with researchers investing as much as five years for such investigations, the question is—how much relevance is this to their future teaching positions in a Bible college or preaching in a church? How much more useful would such studies be if they integrated concepts from the Old and the New Testaments, not just from academic points of view, but for application in the actual socio-economic and cultural ministry contexts? If the Bible is not presented in a relevant manner in theological training, then it becomes nothing more than a lifeless text from our past with only academic value to the present. The Bible is not merely words, but words that must become continue to become flesh in the everyday actualities of life. In this sense, the world is the real classroom and we must engage students within this wide environment through integrated learning.

Some Background Insights

I have used the word “integration” frequently, and so pause for a definition. Integration comes from the Latin word “integer”, meaning whole or entire. It has become an integral part of conversations at various levels and disciplines within education. No longer do professionals approach problems from a narrow perspective. Psychologists and psychiatrists treat the personality as being closely bound together with events that seem far apart in time but impacting any given action. Integrated approaches have become the basis of treating various human disorders. Even ecologists will argue that deforestation, population, pollution and a host of other factors over centuries are all contributing in an interconnected manner to the crisis we face at present and need to be studied as wholes.

We have inevitably moved to discussing “holism”—the relation of the parts and the whole. We speak today of holistic mission. The important thing to note is: the part can only be understood in the context of the whole. This is an important aspect of any hermeneutical approach we take to understanding and interpreting our scriptures. Meanings are discovered only within their contexts—the parts become meaningful within the whole. In short, integration refers to making connections between constituent elements in order for their real meaning to be explored. In education, integration relates to how the various components of the institution—the subjects, teacher, classroom, student and real life, etc.—are held together.

The term holism is no new find in the 20th or 21st century! An understanding of the whole and parts has been around ever since the Greek philosopher Aristotle but the concept has been revived widely in recent times. The great philosopher defined it as “The whole is more than the sums of its parts” (Metaphysica). The basic definition summarizes what was generally believed to be the essence of holism, but the concept has emerged more influentially in recent decades. The term is derived from the Greek word “holos” meaning “whole”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines holism as “[the] tendency in nature to form wholes that are more than the sum of the parts by ordered grouping.” The theory, therefore, emphasizes both the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

Accepting the importance of holism leads us to the concept of “synergy.” It comes from the Greek, “synergia,” meaning joint or cooperative action. Synergy must be understood in relationship to holism, in that combined forces produce much more than individual efforts. For instance, two people can work separately and add their individual efforts. However, the outcome will be much less than what could have been accomplished if they combined their energies. In simple terms, one plus one normally equals two, but in the theory of synergy it equals three, four, or much more. (There is an inspiring discussion on “synergy” in Stephen Covey’s popular book, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

We can see the relevance to educational systems. Synergy can refer to various faculties work-ing together and discovering that there is greater effectiveness in fulfilling our learning goals and outcomes together. Integrated programs may be developed that interconnect two or more or several subjects to discover greater effectiveness. If all we needed was to produce pure engineers, doctors, community workers or pastors, then specialized isolated environments would be appropriate for each. However, we need professionals with integrated holistic perspectives, and faculty and departments must interact frequently to establish connections and explore real world applications. Energies must operate together. Such integration will bring synergistic results multiplied several times over rather than merely adding up strengths together.

What, Then, Is Integrated Learning?

The question now arises—how does all this discussion on integration, holism, and synergy apply to learning and education? We must underline that the first goal in integrating learning with real life is to maximize the learner’s experience. It was Maria Montessori, an Italian educator, who demonstrated that children are capable of learning the things that they need to know as long as they have the right environment. Her bold claim that children learn more directly from their own environment and relatively little from listening to a teacher talking to a class, led to the Montessori education method which is characterized by self-directed activity on the part of the child and deliberate observation on the part of the teacher. The emphasis is on the importance of adapting the child’s learning environment to his/her developmental level and on the role of physical activity to acquire knowledge and gain practical skills (Dr. Montessori Quotes).

A second area of integrated learning is to integrate theoretical knowledge and concepts to real life. Here, we can look at theological education and the theologies that our students are required to learn. Most of this tends to be conceptual learning; however, such theologies are not only learned better, but remembered longer, when they are related to real contexts. When liberation theologians took theories and concepts and applied them to the poor, this integration into real life made theology come alive.

A third area of integration is for learning to be related to the particular gift of the learner. Not all of us grasp concepts, and similarly not all of us enjoy accumulating facts and figures. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, proposed by psychologist Howard Gardner, suggests that each individual possesses varying levels of different intelligences. The theory first appeared in Gardner’s book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, in 1983 and has been further refined in subsequent years (Gardner 1983).

Gardner’s theory argues that intelligence, as it is traditionally defined, does not consider the wide variety of learner abilities. He originally identified seven core intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal. In 1999, he added naturalistic as the eighth intelligence. Basically, Gardner suggests that a student who masters math is not necessarily more intelligent than one who excels in words or colors, and that a traditionally uniform curriculum and syllabus severely limits our identification of the true talents within learners.

A fourth area of integration is the relation of one area of learning with another to break down the walls we build in our artificially segregated curriculum. Students will learn better if they connect what is learned within one particular situation or discipline to another. There are some obvious natural connections, while others can be created. For instance, one may be learning Geography with natural references to mathematics, biology, language etc. and seeing this could enhance learning appreciably. The Minor Prophets could be studied along with related areas in ethics, sociology, economics etc. Required knowledge can be acquired far more easily when developed and integrated into more than one area of study.

Fifthly, integration must employ various modes of educational deliveries. Such modes may transcend the classroom for total learning to take place. We have erroneously confined the learning experience to classrooms and in doing so have focused solely on the teacher as the giver/conveyor and the student as the receiver/container. Learning is much more complex and may take root in a variety of environments. All kinds of formal and informal, on-campus and off-campus, on-line and off-line methods must be utilized to fully maximize an integrated learning process.

Where Do We Start?

We must start with the actual content matter of our teaching—curriculum and syllabuses. The following provides a definition of an integrated course which will reflect this integrated approach we are advocating:

An integrated course is one that is organized in such a way that it cuts across subject-matter lines, bringing together various aspects of the particular subject in an interaction with other areas of study in order to achieve the stated objectives and outcomes of the program. It views learning and teaching in a holistic way and reflects on issues in the real world making courses meaningful within their particular as well as wider contexts (Shoemaker 1989, 5).

Integrated courses will therefore be cross-curricular and the curriculum interrelated. Teachers see outcomes become far more observable and therefore more accurately measured. We not only need to look at integrated courses, but an integrated curriculum as well. The integrated curriculum, and the learning experiences that are planned accordingly, not only provide the learners with a unified view of all that he/she is learning, but also motivates and develop the learners’ ability to apply this learning to newer studies, models and systems. Everything learned becomes a tool for further learning and the integration into real life.

Another way to look at this is through an interdisciplinary curriculum. In an interdisciplinary curriculum,

The planned learning experiences not only provide the learners with a unified view of commonly held knowledge (by learning the models, systems, and structures of the culture) but also motivate and develop learners’ power to perceive new relationships and thus to create new models, systems, and structures (Dressel 1958).

 The Learning Experience

As we begin to consider some facets of integrated learning, for me one of the most essential aspects will be learning within experience. This is what ministry training should be. John Dewey, although not very sympathetic of the Christian faith, became known for criticizing the authoritarian, strict, pre-set knowledge approach of traditional education of the 1920’s and 1930’s. The system was preoccupied with transferring knowledge and not concerned enough with understanding and influencing the students’ actual experiences. Integrated learning brings in such a questioning approach as was anticipated by Dewey decades ago. In his book, Experience and Education, he integrated “real life” into learning by suggesting practical links and activities. For instance, he suggested that math could be learned by studying cooking proportions or by studying how long it would take to travel a particular distance by mule. Dewey also suggested that history could be studied by experiencing how the people lived within a particular era, their geography and climate, and what animals and plants were present (Dewey 1910). (Also see John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education.)

Educators are now seeing that most learning begins with experience. All of us have seen how a child learns, step by step, building experiences with the family and soon with peers. Basic lessons are learned and then applied. On a higher level, when learners become an integral part of an experience it leads them to deeper reflection, and this eventually leads to some form of meaningful action and eventually changed values. Even further, any knowledge or skill that is acquired from direct participation in events or activities is learning that not only transforms the individual but goes on to influencing those around them. Such learning is technically referred to as “experiential learning”—the process through which a learner acquires knowledge, skills
and values from direct experiences.

We are discovering the urgent need to integrate education into real life. Dewey stressed experience as being essential to education so much that he wrote,

I assume that amid all uncertainties there is one permanent frame of reference: namely, the organic connection between education and personal experience; or that the new philosophy of education is committed to some kind of empirical and experimental philosophy. But experience and experiment are not self-explanatory ideas. Rather, their meaning is part of the problem to be explored. To know the meaning of empiricism we need to understand what experience is (Dewey 1938, 12f ).

We need, however, to underline that Dewey did not advocate that all education is obtained completely through “experience”. “The belief that all genuine education comes through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be equated to each other” (Dewey 1938, 12). He was also careful not to suggest that the classroom itself was devoid of experiences. “It is a great mistake to suppose, even tacitly, that the traditional schoolroom was not a place in which pupils had experiences” (Dewey 1938, 12).

The plea is for the teacher to liven up the classroom and provide students with genuine learning experiences. The challenge for teachers is to make learning an exciting experience by making it a part of experience itself. This ought to be an urgent task for ministry trainers. The classroom itself must be converted into a conducive place for experiencing learning rather than merely stimulating the cerebral side of humans. We need to make every attempt to transform education into an experience in life. Life is an array of rich and diverse experiences and integrate learning will help us hold them together in one big picture that is framed within real life.

A Learner-Centered Approach

Another characteristic of learning that will enhance integration is where the learner is himself/herself engaged in the process of education. In fact, this is one of the hallmarks of integrated learning—learner-centered. Paulo Freire is the one who provides us with some helpful insights, but not without a caustic criticism of our prevailing systems (1970, 54). He challenges the familiar description of our present education system in most systems of the world—“...the teacher teaches and the students are taught; … the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing!”

To begin to understand Freire’s concern we must start with his fundamental attack on Western education. He wanted to reach down to the “oppressed” people, but found the prevailing model unsatisfactory. Most educators will know Freire for two important concepts—“banking education” and “problem-posing education.” What does he mean by “banking education”? It is a parody of our present educational system, where students are the receivers and the teachers are the givers—the “depositories and the depositors” (Freire 1970, 54).

This is an uncomfortably familiar picture to many of us. Most of our teachers come armed with stacks of well worn text books to pass information on to students. Facts come in static forms and all the student is required to do is memorize these. Facts and figures are transferred from the teacher to the student, and these facts are transferred back to the teacher in the examination papers. Students are graded according to the quantity of this body of knowledge reproduced, rather than the critical application of knowledge to their individual contexts. But real education is much more than the accumulation of facts, even biblical facts.

The attack on the “Banking style” of education and the call for a “problem posing” approach must prompt us to understand Freire’s far more interactive dialogical method. Prevailing forms of teaching, for him, were flawed. This may be an uncomfortably familiar picture to most of us, and Freire graphically puts it as follows:

(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught;

(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;

(c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;

(d) the teacher talks and the students listen meekly;

(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;

(f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply;

(g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher;

(h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt;

(i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;

(j) the teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects” (Freire 1970, 53).

Efforts must be made to improve teacher-student interaction within our classrooms. This by itself will make the classroom a lively experience rather than a dull academic detention. Students
must get engaged in the learning process rather than being passive observers of the teacher’s performance. Questions must be encouraged. Discussions must become part and parcel of every class. The whole “teaching” environment must get converted into a “learning” experience.

The Seamless Coat of Learning

We come to an important aspect of integrated learning. Subjects, thoughts, curriculum and all that concerns learning must flow from one into the other. An apt description comes as “The Seamless Coat of Learning,” the subtitle of a book by A. N. Whitehead. His philosophy of education appropriately highlights his view of the essential unity in all learning (Evans 1998). His stress on the integration of knowledge and application sharply contrasts with educational practices that continue to demand academic exercises within isolated gymnasiums.

Whitehead (1929) provided the richness of harmony and color to make learning a multicolored experience rather than colorless classroom occasion. The “rhythm of education,” as he put it, is a sequence of three stages—romance, precision, and mastery. The progression provides the scope to view education as a growing adventure in a wide world and not a singular pursuit pressing towards a termination with degrees and graduation. Integration must prepare the learner for an exploration of life in all its multifaceted challenges.

Whitehead was concerned with practically training a child in an integrated environment that did not lead to “mental dry rot.” We are guilty of contributing to a child’s aversion to school and studies with lifeless concepts that does not bring out any of this rhythm and romance from within. Students must begin to enjoy and love what they are learning for life and not merely for examinations. We need to ask a very pertinent question—How much of what we teach is really appealing to the child? Whitehead wrote against “inert ideas”— “ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.” He wrote:

Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful—corruptio optimi, pessima. Except at rare intervals of intellectual ferment, education in the past has been radically infected with inert ideas. That is the reason why uneducated clever women, who have seen much of the world, are in middle life so much the most cultured part of the community. They have been saved from this horrible burden of inert ideas. Every intellectual revolution which has ever stirred humanity into greatness has been a passionate protest against inert ideas. Then, alas, with pathetic ignorance of human psychology, it has proceeded by some educational scheme to bind humanity afresh with inert ideas of its own fashioning (Whitehead 1929).

Rabindranath Tagore

Our discussion on facets of integration concludes with a look into Rabindranath Tagore’s educational philosophy. This outstanding Indian Nobel Laureate was known for his experiments at Shantiniketan, a model school set in a pristine open environment. Critical of the over-emphasis on the classroom and with the dissemination of theoretical facts and lifeless knowledge, he primarily underlined a form of education that was deeply rooted in one’s immediate natural environment. Learning must be natural and the child must feel at home. The child’s personality had to be totally developed and therefore Tagore called for creativity, freedom, and cultural awareness in curriculums.

From our very childhood habits are formed and knowledge is imparted in such a manner that our life is weaned away from nature and our mind and the world are set in opposition from the beginning of our days. Thus the greatest of educations for which we came prepared is neglected, and we are made to lose our world to find a bagful of information instead. We rob the child of his earth to teach him geography, of language to teach him grammar. His hunger is for the Epic, but he is supplied with chronicles of facts and dates. … Child-nature protests against such calamity with all its power of suffering, subdued at last into silence by punishment (Tagore 1917).

Narmadeshwar Jha’s summary (1994) of Tagore’s educational philosophy indicates that his genius lay in the way he integrated the child’s total being rather than merely feeding the mind. A holistic approach looked at the child as a total personality. Tagore recognized children as spiritual, social, and individual beings and that their education should be set within the right environment. He proposed that instead of burdening the memory with plain knowledge, the student should have contact with living nature. He believed that children, with the freshness of their senses, had an intimate relationship with the natural world and he taught that they must never lose the vigorous, life-giving energy that it produced. Formal teaching with its mental stress was limited. Rather, the influences for mental and physical growth were far more significant.

Rabindranath Tagore exposed a glaring problem in our school education. Children “mug-up” dates and disconnected cold facts in history or even mathematical theorems. There is no real life or integration into life. There are no interconnections seen. Instead, if history could be studied from the perspective of various interesting facts and issues, there would be real life that will motivate the child to pursue other “histories.” Church History could fall into this discussion. Efforts should be made to discuss various facts around the growth of doctrine or a denomination. The actual history of India or Nigeria could find integration into the history of the church in these countries. Various philosophies and thought forms that flourished in those periods could be integrated to show the relevance of the church. History could come alive right within the classroom.

Most of our seminaries and Bible colleges or Christian universities boast of fairly good campuses. Unfortunately our accreditation systems stress the classroom and the library. Getting students out into the open environment could be just a beginning in discovering the joy of liberation from the four walls of the academic imprisonment we have imposed on ourselves. Books are useful tools, but ours is not the objective of producing book worms, but people who will read from the book of life itself. Lecturers can get away from their lecture mode and facilitate students in discovering facts from real life.

Life-long Learning

It is in this context that we can appreciate the compelling concept of life-long learning. Once the taste for integrated learning is truly acquired, the learner sets out to integrate his or her knowledge and skills into actual life. We learn to integrate into life itself. When learning becomes an integral part of life, life seems empty without learning. The hunger for learning is something that needs to be inculcated into students who will otherwise hanker after other passions in life if not provided with opportunities for fulfillment.

Keeping up to date in knowledge and skills has become a requirement for almost all professionals in our world characterized by its phenomenal leaps in learning. Christian ministry training programs must also deliberately develop this desire within its students. The majority tend to leave seminaries or Bible colleges with the feeling that they have learned sufficiently. In fact, need I say that many are even waiting to leave as they have had enough! Lifelong learning skills come through properly integrated teaching programs and therefore providing tools for integrated learning becomes essential in our training programs.

The ACTS Model

What I write are not mere philosophical ponderings from the stalwarts I have mentioned above, but from actual engagement in integrated learning over the years. The vision God gave me 35 years ago, and the resulting ACTS Institute model in Bangalore, India, has been a fulfilling journey over the past 30 years. The integration of “work, worship, and witness” that resulted from a vision from the book of Acts has begun to prove itself in producing people with a holistic vision. Integrated education has produced integrated people.

What we have tried to do at ACTS is to teach in a holistic environment so that students receive training for life itself. Whether teaching the Bible or Sociology, we teach them as part of the whole Christian life. Skills are taught with connections to their Christian life, the Bible is taught with connections to socio-economic contexts, and the end product is a well rounded person able to minister in real life rather than just preach from the pulpit.

ACTS has grown to doctoral level studies and integration is the key even here. Pure theological or biblical dissertations are discouraged. Application to real life, relevance to actual ministry
contexts with a holistic approach to the mission of God is central to all these theses. Rather than academic approaches, dissertations attempt to discover applications to actual life and mission of the church.

True Value of Education Restored

Integrated learning is bringing new life into the meaningless routines of many educationists. This must be expected, as learning is discovering its location in real life, rather than only terminal value in the completion certificate at the end of the course. Students must be trained to see every bit of learning as relevant to their life and service.

Curriculum must certainly change. The content of skills and knowledge we share with students must be integrated to the learner’s real life experience. It is this that will make education a rich “social experience.” John Dewey said, “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” And I add—Life itself is learning. When education and life get integrated the possibilities are unpredictable. Learning in this sense becomes one’s own possession which soon will turn into an unappeasable passion. And this passion will translate into very meaningful actions.


Dewey, John. 1910. How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.

–––––––. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.

Dressel, Paul L. 1958. The Meaning and Significance of Integration. In The Integration of Educational Experiences, 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, ed. Nelson b. Henry, 3-25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, Malcolm D. 1998. Whitehead and Philosophy of Education: The Seamless Coat of Learning. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodobi.

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Jha, Narmadeshwar. 1994. “Rabindranath Tagore.” Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Education 24, no. 3/4, 603-19.

Macaulay, Thomas B. 1835. “Minute on Indian Education,” 2 February.

Shoemaker, Betty Jean Eklund. 1989. “Integrative Education: A Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century.” OSSC Bulletin 33, no. 2 (October), 5.

Tagore, Rabindranath. 1917. My school. In Personality. London: Macmillan.

Whitehead, Alfred North. 1929. The Aims of Education. New York: Macmillan.