Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

DOI 10.1007/s11469-016-9703-1

O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

Humanistic Education and students’ Educational

Motivation in Tehran Primary Schools

PariNaz PourAli 1 & Maryam SeifNaraghi 1 &

Ezatollah Naderi 1

Published online: 11 November 2016

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract The present article surveys teachers and principals on perceived elementary
students’ educational motivation and achievement in the 2nd education district in Tehran.
Two groups from the 2nd district in Tehran were examined: Principals (managers &
assistants) in public and private primary schools (boys and girls schools), and teachers in
public and private primary schools (boys and girls schools). The sample groups consisted
of 183 Principals (managers & assistants), and 295 teachers through stratified random
sampling. The questionnaire examined 4 primary components of humanistic education:
the teaching-learning environment, the role of the teacher, the role of student and
methods of evaluation. The results show that all 4 components of humanistic education
were not applied adequately in primary schools, therefore showing that the humanistic
approach to education is underused.

Keywords Motivation . Intrinsic motivation . Learning . Humanism . Humanistic education .

Mental health

An individual’s concept of education is fundamental for both students and teachers. The
concept of learning is defined as the transfer of knowledge (cognitive aspect) and values
(personal/emotional aspect) to create educational growth (Safi 2012). Education plays a
key role in the social, mental and even physical development of both people and
societies (Cannella 1997; King and Kitchener 1994; Venkatraja and Indira 2011; Weist
et al. 2001). It is in our schools that students develop their capabilities, prepare for their
future and learn how to be socialized into society. When this process is effective,
students experience greater substantive learning, express their emotions in a healthier
manner, are more socially competent and experience improved mental health (Cannella

* Maryam SeifNaraghi
eznaderi@hotmail.com

1
Department of Educational Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322 313

1997; King and Kitchener 1994; Venkatraja and Indira 2011; Waxman et al. 1999;
Zeidler et al. 2008). When this process is not effective, students become prone to mental
health issues, behaviour problems, low self-esteem and impeded academic success. In the
worst cases, these processes may even reinforce stereotypes and work to maintain the
status quo (Cannella 1997). Therefore, it is vital that our education systems utilize
frameworks that are the most effective in producing positive outcomes for all students,
based on empirical evidence.
A number of different theoretical perspectives inform current practical frameworks in
education. Traditionally, cognitive and behavioral approaches have been most influential on
school curriculums (Dembo 1994; Deubel 2003; Ertmer and Newby 1993; Kozhevnikov
2007; Mergel 1998; Yilmaz 2011). While these approaches differ from each other in important
ways, they both place the teacher and educational system in the place of authority and limit the
student’s opportunities for self-directed study. A brief outline of each theory is provided below.
Behaviourism is a school of thought that dominated in the 1920s to the 1950s. According to
this perspective, learning is an objective process that can be directly measured with observable
behaviour changes. Learning occurs when the subject makes an association between a stimulus
and a specific behaviour. If the response leads to consequences, it will not be repeated, however,
if it leads to a reward, the behaviour will increase. Behaviourists believe that learning is a simple
process of behaviour modification in light of punishments and reinforcements (Thorndike
1927). In this view, cognitive and emotional processes are irrelevant and the learner is not an
agent in their learning. Many criticize this view for being superficial and not stimulating deeper
learning. In addition, it encourages competition among students, fails to recognize differences
in learning styles and abilities, and may actually encourage maladaptive behaviours if they are
reinforced with rewards (Cannella 1997; Weiner 1965; Wolpe and Rowan 1988).
Because of these failings, cognitivism came into dominance in the 1950s and has prevailed
since then. Cognitive perspectives reject the view that behaviour should be the prime target of
learning and focus on developing inner processes like critical thinking, problem solving, concept
development and information processing (Cooper 1993; Ertmer and Newby 1993; McKenna
1994; Ormrod and Davis 2004). This perspective moves away from what we do to what we know
and how we know it. It encourages students to make connections in their knowledge, draw
conclusions on their own and stimulates deeper learning (Ertmer and Newby 1993). While this
process is definitely more reflexive and produces better outcomes than behaviourism, it still
utilizes a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, limits self-direction to the confines of a structured
curriculum and fails to focus on motivating students to take ownership of their education.
In contrast, humanistic education approaches, originally developed by Abraham Maslow
and Carl Rogers, encourages students to be the prime agent of their own development.
Humanists believe that humans, unlike animals, behave with “intentiality and values” (Kurtz
2000). They believe that all humans have their own unique capabilities, wants and needs, and
that freedom, agency and self-direction are key elements in psycho-social development. As
such, education systems should foster environments where students are self-motivated, take
control of their learning and learn to self-evaluate. A review of the literature has highlighted
four key components to humanistic education:

1) Positive learning environments: safe, reflexive, tolerant, non-judgmental and responsive

environments.
314 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

2) Self-motivated students: students take charge of their education, and are motivated from
within (and not with rewards or punishments).
3) Teacher as facilitator: teachers create positive learning environments, supply resources as
the student gains interest/aptitude in certain areas, develops emotional stability and self-
esteem, promotes tolerance and understands differences in learning styles and abilities.
4) Self-evaluation: a deeper understanding of the self is gained through self-evaluation; it
also teaches students to develop independently and promotes lifelong learning.

A number of studies have demonstrated that humanistic approaches to education produce

better educational, mental and social outcomes than behaviourism or cognitivism (Matthews
1991; Moskowitz 1981; Shourini 2010; Weaver and Matthews 1993). Yet, studies also reveal
that this perspective is generally under-utilized in most education systems (Mahboubeh,
Vajargah, and Rahim 2009; Wenzhong and Youzhong 2006; Matthews 1991). Additionally,
many students experience academic difficulties, lack of motivation, low self-esteem and mental
health problems (Cannella 1997; Crocker and Major 1989; Deci et al. 1991; Harackiewicz
2000; King and Kitchener 1994; Mahboubeh et al. 2009; Matthews 1991; McGee and Williams
2000; Moskowitz 1981; Purkey 1978; Waxman et al. 1999; Weist et al. 2001; Zeidler et al.
2008). Therefore, it may be possible that many of the problems that students are experiencing in
their psycho-social development could be resolved if education systems utilized humanistic
theoretical perspectives in their practical frameworks. In order to do this, we must first
determine whether humanistic perspectives are being applied at all, and if so, to what degree.
As such, this study seeks to examine whether humanistic principles, based on the four
components of humanistic education, are being applied to primary schools in Tehran, Iran.

Materials and Methods

The sample consisted of two groups: principals and teachers of public and private
primary schools (boy and girl schools) in Tehran’s 2nd district. A stratified random
sampling method was used for recruitment. A reliable questionnaire by the researchers
was used to gather data, along with the under-evaluation elements of the related process.
The applied questionnaire included 4 elements and 46 options. Chi square tests were
used to analyze the data in this study.

Results

As shown in Table 1, more than 65 % of principals and teachers believe that the humanistic
education system is not applied widely in Tehran’s learning environments.
As shown in Table 2, more than 65 % of principals and teachers believe that the humanistic
education system is not widely used by teachers.
As shown in Table 3, more than 55 % of principals and teachers believe that the humanistic
education system is not widely applied by students.
As shown in Table 4, more than 75 % of principals and teachers believe that the humanistic
education system is not applied widely in testing methods.
Table 1 Principals’ and teachers’ view regarding students’ learning environment management
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

Groups/statistical Very low Low Moderate High Very high

indexes
Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent

Principals 62 33.9 63 34.4 35 19.1 20 10.9 3 1.6

Teachers 83 28.1 133 45.1 42 14.2 34 11.5 3 1
315
 316

Table 2 Principals’ and teachers’ view regarding the role of teacher

Groups/statistical indexes Very low Low Moderate High Very high

Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent

Principals 56 30.6 65 5.35 35 19.1 22 12 5 2.7

Teachers 80 27.1 125 42.4 39 13.2 37 12.5 14 4.7
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322
Table 3 Principals’ and teachers’ view regarding the learner’s role
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

Groups/statistical indexes Very low Low Moderate High Very high

Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent

Principals 35 19.1 69 37.7 25 13.7 30 16.4 24 13.1

Teachers 75 25.4 107 36.3 57 19.3 34 11.5 22 7.5
317
 318

Table 4 Principals’ and teachers’ view regarding the students’ testing method

Groups/statistical indexes Very low Low Moderate High Very high

Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent Distribution percent

Principals 3 1.6 10 5.5 67 36.6 83 45.4 20 10.9

Teachers 1 0.3 26 8.8 104 35.3 120 40.7 44 14.9
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322 319

Discussion

Previous research has shown that education is fundamental to social development, on both an
individual and societal level (Cannella 1997; King and Kitchener 1994; Venkatraja and Indira
2011; Weist et al. 2001). Yet, current research has demonstrated that many students continue to
struggle with social, academic and mental health problems, and have negative projections of
their future success (Cannella 1997; Crocker and Major 1989; Deci et al. 1991; Harackiewicz
2000; King and Kitchener 1994; Mahboubeh et al. 2009; Matthews 1991; McGee and
Williams 2000; Moskowitz 1981; Purkey 1978; Waxman et al. 1999; Weist et al. 2001;
Zeidler et al. 2008). This suggests that current practical frameworks are not sufficient in
meeting the needs of our students. For example, Zivin et al. (2009) found that over half of the
students that they studied reported mental health problems either during their baseline assess-
ment or during a follow up assessment. Likewise, Hyun et al. (2006) found that almost half of
their sample of graduate students were emotionally distressed, and Brooks et al. (2002) found
that 35 % of high school students reported depressive symptoms in their study.
In terms of social skills, a meta-analysis of social skills interventions in young students with
emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) found that current theoretical frameworks are
ineffective at helping these students develop the social skills necessary to perform well in
school (Mathur et al. 1998). In addition, it was reported that social skills training (SST) in
students with EBD was heavily influenced by behaviourist theories. For example, these classes
would often teach outward behaviours like smiling, making eye contact, and saying please and
thank you, rather than modeling empathy, caring and understanding. Similarly, Maag (2006)
performed a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of SST approaches on improving social skills
in students with EBD and found that these programs only had a modest impact.
It appears as if traditional frameworks that fail to encourage intrinsic motivation are also
problematic. It has been found that both cognitive skills and intrinsic motivation are necessary
for academic success (Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2002). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002) found
that the four key factors in motivation that led to academic success were 1) being intrinsically
motivated rather than extrinsically; 2) academic self-efficacy; 3) believing that their efforts and
skills would result in success, and; 4) motivation that is centered around achievement goals. A
meta-review by Deci et al. (1999) also found that intrinsic motivators were significantly more
effective at producing better academic outcomes than extrinsic motivators. Additionally, a
meta-review by Schunk (2003) reported that studies consistently find that self-efficacy scores
are higher in students who score high on measures of motivation.
We propose that the gap between current practical frameworks and inadequate student
outcomes is due to the theoretical perspectives that currently inform most education systems
and educators. Research suggests that cognitivism, and even behaviourism, have a bigger
influence on educational frameworks than humanistic approaches (Matthews 1991;
Moskowitz 1981; Shourini 2010; Weaver and Matthews 1993), while other studies have found
that humanistic approaches are under-utilized in most education systems (Am 1995;
Mahboubeh, Vajargah, and Rahim 2009; Wenzhong and Youzhong 2006; Matthews 1991).
Our current study confirmed this to be true in primary schools in Tehran, Iran.
Gianconia and Hedges (1982) performed a meta-analysis on “open education”, which is an
educational framework based on many humanistic principles. An analysis of 150 studies on
open education found that students taught in this framework showed greater independence,
creativity, emotional adjustment and improved attitudes towards learning, school and their
teacher compared to students taught in traditional frameworks. In another meta-analysis by
320 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

Aspy and Roebuck (1977), they reviewed the use of “facilitative teaching” methods among
600 teachers (kindergarten to grade 12), and found that students whose teachers used the
facilitative teaching methods described by Carl Rogers (1969) had higher self-concept scores,
performed better academically, had less disciplinary problems and missed fewer days of
school. This was likely facilitated by the environments that these teachers created. In an earlier
study by Aspy and Roebuck (1975), they studied teachers for their ability to provide
facilitative environments, and found that facilitative teachers were warm and inviting to their
students, responded to their feelings and ideas, created open dialogue with their students,
showed empathy and understanding to their perspectives, and offered them praise and positive
evaluations.
We suggest that humanistic approaches might help yield better overall outcomes for
students. These approaches succeed through the following four components:

1) Positive learning environments: leads to better outcomes by creating environments that

are open, tolerant, non-competitive, enjoyable and safe.
2) Self-motivated students: students learn positive self concepts, have a better understanding
of their abilities, gain experience in making choices, build self-esteem and a sense of
intrinsic motivation.
3) Teacher as facilitator: teachers are seen as partners in learning and help students develop
communication and social skills, and boost their self-esteem.
4) Self-evaluation: evaluation is based on their own growth and abilities and helps further
stimulate their motivation. It makes them self-reflect and learn to be self-guided.

While our study calls for an increase in humanistic approaches, it should be noted that both
cognitivism and behaviourism offer value in the education process as well. Our position is that
current theoretical perspectives are limiting and do not allow for each student to follow their
own unique pathway to self-actualization. At the same time, it has been found that behavioural
and cognitive approaches do help students with substantive learning. It can be said that the
humanistic approach uses a higher level of learning, one where the self-motivated individual
may utilize behavioural approaches like memorization or cognitive processes like critical
thinking in their educational pursuits. Humanistic frameworks do not preclude these tech-
niques, but rather encourage students to develop their own motivation to learn, possibly using
one of these techniques. It requires the process be intrinsic. Indeed, a student who gains a love
of science would by necessity, need to learn the vocabulary of their field of study and a student
who gains a love of writing, would need to learn critical thinking. But the motivation to do so
should come from a love of learning that comes from within and not from a structured
curriculum. In addition, using the humanistic approach can attach deeper meaning the
concepts being developed with other approaches. For example, Rizzolo (2002) argues that
anatomy courses, which are often seen as not fitting the humanistic framework, should not be
dismissed in medical education, as not only do you learn about dissection and anatomical
structures, but you can also learn about the more humanistic dimensions of care, death and
disease. This example shows that education is far too complex to reduce to a single theoretical
perspective, and also shows that humanistic teaching methods can add considerable depth in
learning to the educational frameworks that are already in place.
In summary, it is proposed that humanistic educational approaches may be helpful in
improving social, mental and academic outcomes in students. It should be noted, however,
that many barriers to its implementation exist. For example, not all educators are familiar with
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322 321

these approaches or even accept them. To implement a new theoretical framework would
require a considerable paradigm shift in education, and considerable training to back it up. In
addition, parents may not understand or even support humanistic approaches. Another problem
is that the overwhelming majority of post-secondary, and even some secondary and primary
schools, require quantitative metrics to compare students for admission into their programs.
With applications often reaching the thousands, even tens of thousands, entirely qualitative
means of evaluation may not be practical. Even more difficult is how institutions of higher
learning would make sense of self-evaluations. While these are important challenges, they can
be overcome with further research and a commitment to providing our students with the best
foundation possible for their futures.

References

Am, O. (1995). The evolutionary structure of the school system. Stavanger: Author.
Aspy, D., & Roebuck, F. (1975). The relationship of teacher-offered conditions of meaning to behaviors
described by Flanders’ interaction analysis. Education, 95, 216–222.
Aspy, D., & Roebuck, F. (1977). Kid’s don’t learn from people they don’t like. Amherst: Human Resources
Development Press.
Brooks, T. L., Harris, S. K., Thrall, J. S., & Woods, E. R. (2002). Association of adolescent risk behaviors with
mental health symptoms in high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(3), 240–246.
Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: Social Justice and Revolution. Michigan:
Peter Lang Inc.
Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm Shifts in Designed Instruction: From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to
Constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.
Psychological Review, 96(4), 608.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-
determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627.
Dembo, M. H. (1994). Applying Educational Psychology. New York City: Longman/Addison Wesley.
Deubel, P. (2003). An Investigation of Behaviorist and Cognitive Approaches to Instructional Multimedia
Design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 63–90.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism: Comparing Critical
Features from an Instruction Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Gianconia, R., & Hedges, L. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational
Research, 52(4), 579–602.
Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and perfor-
mance. Academic Press.
Hyun, J. K., Quinn, B. C., Madon, T., & Lustig, S. (2006). Graduate student mental health: Needs assessment and
utilization of counseling services. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 247–266.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework
of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464.
Kurtz, P. (2000). Humanist manifesto 2000: A call for a new planetary humanism. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology
Review, 31(3), 313.
Maag, J.W. (2006). Social skills training for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of
reviews. Behavioral Disorders, 4–17.
Mahboubeh, A., Vajargah, F., & Rahim, N. (2009). Academic and Professional Knowledge of Primary School
Teachers About Learning Theories: Evidence from Primary School Teachers of Hamedan. Journal of
Educational Innovations, 8(30), 31–52.
322 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2017) 15:312–322

Mathur, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Quinn, M.M., Forness, S.R. & Rutherford, R.B. (1998). Social skills interventions
with students with emotional and behavioral problems: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research.
Behavioral Disorders, 193–201.
Matthews, D. B. (1991). The Effects of School Environment on Intrinsic Motivation of Middle School Children.
Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 30(1), 30–36.
McGee, R. O. B., & Williams, S. (2000). Does low self-esteem predict health compromising behaviours among
adolescents? Journal of Adolescence, 23(5), 569–582.
McKenna, G. (1994). Learning theories made easy: cognitivism. Nursing Standard (Royal College of Nursing
(Great Britain): 1987), 9(30), 25–28.
Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Press.
Moskowitz, G. (1981). Effects of Humanistic Techniques on Attitude, Cohesiveness, and Self-Concept of
Foreign Language Students. The Modern Language Journal, 65(2), 149–157.
Ormrod, J.E., & Davis, K.M. (2004). Human learning. Merrill.
Purkey, W. W. (1978). Inviting School Success: A Self-Concept Approach to Teaching and Learning. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Rizzolo, L. J. (2002). Human Dissection: An Approach to Interweaving the Traditional and Humanistic Goals of
Medical Education. The Anatomical Record, 269(6), 242–248.
Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn (1st ed.). New York: Macmillan/Merrill.
Safi, A. (2012). Primary, Guidance and High School Educations. Tehran: SAMT.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-
evaluation. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159–172.
Shourini, S. (2010). Basics of Educational Planning. Tehran: Yadvareh Ketab.
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.
Venkatraja, B., & Indira, M. (2011). Role of education in social development: an empirical analysis. Madhya
Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 1–11.
Waxman, R. P., Weist, M. D., & Benson, D. M. (1999). Toward collaboration in the growing education-mental
health interface. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(2), 239–253.
Weaver, M. D., & Matthews, D. B. (1993). The Effects of a Program to Build Self-Esteem of At-Risk Students.
Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 31(4), 181–188.
Weiner, H. (1965). Conditioning history and maladaptive human operant behavior. Psychological Reports, 17(3),
935–942.
Weist, M. D., Lowie, J. A., Flaherty, L. T., & Pruitt, D. (2001). Collaboration Among the Education, Mental
Health and Public Health Systems to Promote Youth Mental Health. Psychiatric Services, 52(10), 1348–
1351.
Wenzhong, H. & Youzhong, S. (2006). On Strengthening Humanistic Education in the English Language
Curriculum. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2006–05.
Wolpe, J., & Rowan, V. C. (1988). Panic disorder: A product of classical conditioning. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 26(6), 441–450.
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The Cognitive Perspective on Learning: Its Theoretical Underpinnings for Classroom
Practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204–212.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2008). Advancing Reflective Judgment through
Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Thinking, 46(1), 74–101.
Zivin, K., Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., & Golberstein, E. (2009). Persistence of mental health problems and
needs in a college student population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 117(3), 180–185.