Purposeful Teaching. In what ways do teachers teach purpose?

PURPOSEFUL TEACHING

I

N

WHAT

WAYS

DO

TEACHERS

TEACH

PURPOSE

?

Masterthesis Humanistiek UvH

Author: Daniëlle Drenth (danielle_drenth_91@hotmail.com) Supervisor: Dr. Elina Kuusisto

Co-reader: Dr. Isolde de Groot 12-07-2019

Academic year 2018-2019 Utrecht

Index

Preface...1

Summary...2

Chapter 1: Introduction...4

§1.1. Motive...4

§1.2. Research goals and questions...5

§1.3. Definitions...6

Chapter 2: Theoretical frame...7

§2.1. Purpose in life concept...7

§2.2. What influences purpose...10

§2.3. Purpose as part of moral development...13

§2.4. Importance of purpose...15

§2.5. Purposeful teaching...17

§2.6. Purpose in Dutch educational system...24

Chapter 3: Method...27 §3.1. Structure...27 §3.2. Participants...27 §3.3. Procedure...28 §3.4. Intruments...29 §3.5. Analysis...29

§3.6. Imperfections and gaps...31

Chapter 4: Results...32

§4.1. Pedagogical relation...32

§4.1.1. Having a supportive attitude...33

§4.1.2. Providing safety through order...37

§4.1.3. Giving attention to individual students...40

§4.2. Didactical relation...42

§4.2.1. Reflective talks...43

§4.2.2. Implicitly purpose-related lessons...47

§4.2.3. Explicitly purpose-related lessons...50

§4.3. Purpose related content...53

§4.3.1. Future related topics...54

§4.3.2. Students’ learning processes...56

§4.3.4. Social-emotional development...59

§4.4. Critical reflections...61

Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion...63

§5.1. Answering research questions...63

§5.2. Discussion...65

§5.3. Implications...65

§5.4. Suggestions for further research...66

Literature...67

Attachments...71

I: Planning...71

II: Interview guide...71

III: Observation guide...71

IV: Code tree...71

V: Data management plan...71

VI: Informed Consent paper...71

Figures

Figure 2: The didactic triangle (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017, p.4)...19

Figure 3: Operationalized elements for purposeful teaching (Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016, p.549)...20

Tables

Table 2: Pedagogical ways in which the teachers taught purpose...32

Table 3: Didactical ways in which the teachers taught purpose...43

Table 4: Purpose related content the teachers taught about...54

Preface

This research about ways to teach purpose wouldn’t exist without the cooperation of the six seventh and eighth grade primary school teachers involved. Thanks to them for opening their classroom for educational research. Also, I want to thank my supervisor, Elina Kuusisto, who made it possible for me to write this thesis well during sickness and health by always being caring and supportive, a trait all purposeful teachers share.

This thesis starts with an introduction about what purpose is and why it’s important to study it in the educational context, focussing on ways teachers can teach purpose. The working definition of purpose is given and research goals and questions are mentioned. In the second chapter the theoretical frame is described focussing on the definition of purpose, forces that influence purpose, the relation of purpose to moral development, the importance of having a purpose and foster it in schools and purposeful teaching. Also, in this chapter the Dutch educational system in relation to moral- and purpose development is briefly described. In the third chapter the method is described. Here, the structure and feasibility of the research is mentioned, the participants are described, the data collection process and the analysis are explained and imperfections and gaps are mentioned. In the fourth chapter the results are described along the lines of three main ways teachers can and do teach purpose and the critical reflections the teachers had on purpose in life in the educational context. These topics correspond with the sub-research questions described in the introduction. In the last chapter the main research question and the sub-research questions are answered. Moreover, the results are discussed and related to the theory and implications for (humanistic) education and suggestions for further research are mentioned. After the last chapter the list of used literature can be found and a list of attachments including: the planning for conducting this thesis, the interview guide, the observation guide, the code tree, the data management plan and the format of the informed consent paper.

Summary

This research identifies in what ways six Dutch seventh and eighth grade teachers teach purpose. Using the theoretical model of Tirri & Kuusisto (2017) purpose can be taught in three main ways: as the content of teaching, within a meaningful didactical relation between the teacher and the students’ learning process and within a close, compassionate, safe and supportive pedagogical relation between the teacher and the student. All teachers taught in these three main ways. The teachers taught purpose mostly pedagogically. They all provided a safe atmosphere, gave students the individual attention they need and were supportive towards them. In this way, the pedagogical conditions to be able to develop a purpose were set in place. Didactically teaching purpose happened a lot less. Teachers were having an interactive classroom atmosphere where reflective talks about studying (results), lesson content and secondary school took place individually and classically. Also, they made regular method lessons meaningful by connecting them to the world of experience of the students by choosing to teach about a subject that was close or meaningful to them, by shaping the content to be close to them or by giving them the freedom, within guidelines, to choose what to do and how to do it. Sometimes they would also clarify the personal relevance of a lesson explicitly, but mostly they explained the extrinsic importance like the importance of a lesson for passing a test or for being prepared for secondary school instead of the intrinsic importance about why a lesson is important for life. However, lessons that didn’t occur much were lessons that were explicitly purpose-related. Lessons about purpose related content were mostly given by the students themselves in the form of presentations about topics they found interesting or actual purposes they were pursuing. The teachers themselves taught social-emotional lessons about what kind of person you want to become in relation to others and philosophy lessons about (moral) identity development. There were also lessons and projects given that were related to the interests, values and believes of students. However, mostly purpose related content was about students’ (academic) learning processes, planning their near future and their future towards secondary school. Since focus is on academic achievement, teachers teach mostly by means of methods in accordance with the national curriculum that makes sure students pass certain tests. Because the teachers are obliged to teach with these methods, they feel they have little time and space to teach about purpose related content, since this type of content is not part of the curriculum. Moral development isn’t mentioned in the Dutch educational

teachers formally have the time and space to give attention to it. In this way, the attention would probably transfer to teacher training as well and teaching and teachers can develop to be moral professionals that know how to foster purpose. Also, the attention for just academic achievement would shift to a more holistic way of looking at development, which in some types of schools like Free Schools is already apparent.

Chapter 1: Introduction

§1.1. Motive

In education all over the world more and more focus is placed on performance outcomes (Biesta, 2009). Due to the stress on achievement, attention for broad personal development is under pressure. At the same time schools are seeking to ‘create effective, supportive, and challenging environments in which students can master skills, dispositions, and actions to direct their lives successfully’ (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017, p.2). This means that even though focus is increasingly on performance outcomes or academic achievement, education also aims to contribute to the broader development of the student as a person. Educators are seeking how to foster social and moral capacities in addition to cognitive capacities, so that students are prepared for their future lives (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2016). This thesis contributes to the research on how teachers can contribute to the development of the whole person in education practices. Following the ideals of Bildung, stemming from German and Nordic traditions (Herbart, 1835; Kivelä & Sijander, 2013; Van Manen, 2000; Toom et.al., 2015 as cited in Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017) this thesis departs from the idea that children should be educated for their future lives. However, this pertains not only skills and knowledge, but also moral skills (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017), because Bildung is about stimulating individual growth in students while at the same time focusing on engaging them critically with the development of society (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2016). Moral skills are necessary for children to become responsible future citizens in a democratic society, an important educational goal according to Dewey (1972). This research follows his line of thinking and sees education as a moral endeavour where teachers make moral choices and try to foster them in children (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017). Focus on Bildung and active, democratic citizenship is also apparent in humanistic education and so, this thesis follows the ideals of humanistic education as well, which makes it relevant for Humanistic Studies (Aloni, 2002 as cited in Veugelers 2011; Aloni, 2011). An important part of this broad, moral development is the development of a purpose in life (Tirri &

Kuusisto, 2017). Purpose is considered to be a core component of positive youth development and human well-being and can function as a moral beacon (Bronk, 2014). Having a purpose causes positive effects like moral commitment, prosocial behaviour, high self-esteem and achievement throughout the rest of the life span (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980), whereas a lack of purpose causes apathy and stress (Damon, 2008).

Following the definition of purpose used by educational professor Damon (2003), purpose is defined as ‘a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once

meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self’ (Damon, Menon & Bronk, 2003, p. 121). This definition of purpose stresses the importance of the meaning of the intention beyond the self. Therefore, it is something crucially different from a self-oriented life goal which doesn’t have to be moral at all (Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003). This is important to highlight, because in western countries, the majority of youth today have self-oriented life goals related to pleasure- and status seeking (Moran, 2017), which is also proven to be the case in an eastern country like Iran (Hedayati, Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2017). Also, a large number of youth in the west lack a sense of direction and are not realistically pursuing a future goal (Damon, 2008; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2016). Since youth is seen as the formative period for cultivating purpose, it’s important to foster it during this phase. In their youth, people start connecting with motivating believe systems that reflect purpose. When they don’t dedicate themselves to a purpose during their youth it becomes difficult to find a motivating believe system later in life (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). More specifically Kawai and Moran (2017) argue that purpose development starts at the age of eleven, ‘when abstract thinking develops’ (Kawai & Moran, 2017, p.329). So, looking at the lack of

attention for broad personal development or Bildung in schools, the lack of youngsters feeling purposeful and the fact that youth is the formative period for cultivating purpose, it is clear that it would be a good thing if purpose development would be a part of schooling (Koshy & Mariano, 2011).

§1.2. Research goals and questions

The main goal of this research is to gain more knowledge about whether and how, in Dutch primary schools, purpose is taught. The focus is on primary school children from the seventh and eighth grade, since purpose development starts around the age of eleven, ‘when abstract thinking develops’ (Kawai & Moran, 2017, p.329). The first three sub-research questions cover the three different ways purpose can be taught as described by Tirri and Kuusisto (2017), namely as content of teaching (1) and by fostering purpose didactically (2) and pedagogically (3), which can be read about in the theoretical frame. The fourth sub-research question is about relevant critical reflections the teachers involved made concerning purpose in life in the school context. Since there is no other empirical research on how purpose is taught in schools, this research explores how primary school teachers in the Netherlands do it using the theoretical model of Tirri and Kuusisto (2017) as a basis, but reporting other ways to

teach purpose when found as well. It’s assumed that purpose is being taught in one way or the other, since it’s almost impossible not to do so at all. This is because ways to teach purpose overlap with basic lessons learned in Dutch teacher training, such as creating a safe and supportive classroom atmosphere in order for students to be able to learn (pedagogical) and connecting the content to the students’ interests (didactical) (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017). Main research question:

In what ways do teachers teach purpose? Sub research questions:

1. How do Dutch primary school teachers foster purpose pedagogically? 2. How do Dutch primary school teachers foster purpose didactically? 3. What purpose related content is taught about in Dutch primary schools?

4. What critical reflections do teachers express concerning purpose in life in the school context?

§1.3. Definitions

Purpose: ‘Purpose is a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is once

meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self’ (Damon et.al., 2003, p.121). Building on this definition, Moran (2009) (in Hedayati, Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2017) operationalized the concept in four dimensions, so that the concept of purpose can be evaluated. These four dimensions are: meaning (for the self), intention, accomplishment and beyond the self. It means that a purpose should be recognized as personally meaningful, one should try to intentionally and actively advance the purpose and lastly the purpose should be social in a way that others profit from it too (Hedayati et.al., 2017).

Chapter 2: Theoretical frame

§2.1. Purpose in life concept

Purpose is defined in many different ways (Bronk, 2014). Research on the concept goes back to 1959, when Viktor Frankl published his book Man’s Search for Meaning. Herein he describes his experiences as an inmate of a concentration camp during World War II. During that time he recognized that people with a positive vision were most likely to survive. He points out that for him having a personally meaningful purpose made him survive this awful time. Other than describing his own experiences he build a theory and therapy-approach on the importance of discovering purpose. In his theory, Frankl uses the words ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ interchangeably. According to him everybody has a meaning, you only need to discover it. Moreover, he saw meaning or purpose as the strongest and fundamental human motivator. He said that purposelessness mostly results in existential frustration which can lead to psychological problems like depression, boredom, hatred, addiction and criminality. He also pointed out that pursuing power, seeking hedonistic pleasure and neurotically obsessing or focussing on materialistic pursuit are all ways to try and deal with a lack of meaning (Frankl, 1984 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Frankl thought that existential frustration was a serious problem. He even estimated that half of the people and roughly twenty percent of the psychiatric and psychological patients were suffering from it (Crumbaugh, 1977; Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964 as cited in Bronk, 2014). This is why he developed his own type of therapy, called logotherapy, focussing on helping people to discover their purpose. It’s based on the principle that to be able to lead a fulfilling life people need a purpose. This principle is based on three key assumptions. Firstly, the Freedom of Will assumption states that ‘although people cannot always control what happens to them, they can always control how they respond to the events in their lives’ (Bronk, 2014, p.3). Secondly, the Will to Meaning assumption states that ‘people’s primary motivation is the desire to find meaning or purpose in their lives’ (Bronk, 2014, p.3). According to Frankl existential frustration occurs when the Will to Meaning is blocked. The third assumption is ‘that life is inherently meaningful under all circumstances’ (Bronk, 2014, p.3). While Frankl developed a questionnaire to measure people’s purpose in the clinical context, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964;1967 as cited in Bronk, 2014) developed a questionnaire on the basis of the Frankl Questionnaire that has been used a lot in research. This questionnaire is called the Purpose in Life test (PIL). Due to the book of Frankl and the PIL test purpose gained attention as a

research subject during the 1960s. After that, research about purpose declined. It was only in the 2000s that scholars started paying attention to purpose again. This came about through the positive psychology movement gaining popularity (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sheldon & King, 2001 as cited in Bronk, 2014).

In more recent research there are different conceptualizations of purpose (Bronk, 2014). First of all, it’s important to distinguish between purpose and meaning. Since even though Frankl used both concepts interchangeably, they are actually not the same. Expansion in recent research in positive psychology made it possible to distinguish between additional concepts, such as purpose and meaning in life. Currently, meaning in life is mostly referred to as having three facets, which all relate to a different dimension of human experience with a different psychological root and a different human function. These three facets are: coherence, purpose and significance (Martela & Steger, 2015). Coherence is understood as the ‘sense of

comprehensibility and one’s life making sense’ (Martela & Steger, 2015, p.534). This facet is referred to as the cognitive component where people make sense of what they are

experiencing. People structure their environment, make patterns and establish predictability to be able to make sense of what’s going on around them. Even more, whole systems of meaning are made by people, so they can make sense of themselves and their place in the world. This type of meaning is descriptive, since it’s a ‘value-neutral process where we make sense of something’ (Martela & Steger, 2015, p.536). The second facet of meaning in life is purpose. Here, purpose is understood as a ‘sense of core goals, aims and direction in life’. Purpose thus refers to the future, to having goals that give direction to life. These long-term, future-oriented goals direct and give significance to present actions. This facet is referred to as the

motivational component where people have future-oriented goals to aspire to that give momentum and direction. This type of meaning is normative, since it’s about goals people value to achieve. The last facet of meaning in life, significance, is understood as a ‘sense of life’s inherent value and having a life worth living’ (Martela & Steger, 2015, p.536). It’s about the value and worthwhileness of life in itself and a feeling that existing in this world actually matters. This facet is referred to as the evaluative component, since it’s about evaluating one’s whole life, including one’s past, present and future. This type of meaning is also normative, since it’s about judging the value of one’s life. Meaning of life thus consists of these three facets, which are united by the fundamental human capability for reflectively interpreting life. We don’t just experience our life in the moment, but make sense of it, give direction to it and find value in it by reflecting on it (Martela & Steger, 2015).

Purpose differs from meaning, since it’s the future-directed part of it. However, the definition of purpose that Martela and Steger (2015) use is insufficient. Purpose is more than just a set of goals that give direction to life. In most research, purpose is defined as having three key elements, which are: commitment, goal-directedness and personal meaningfulness (Bronk, 2014). Commitment is about acting on values and believes, about the time and energy put into an aim (Bronk, 2012; Damon, 2008; Damon et al., 2003 as cited in Bronk, 2014). This is important for identity development, since decisions made will foster a sense of self (Erikson, 1980 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Goal-directedness focuses on the fact that purpose is about pursuing a stable and far-reaching goal (Damon et al., 2003; Damon, 2008 as cited in Bronk, 2014) which influences present actions, behaviours and short-term goals (McKinght & Kashdan, 2009 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Even though the purpose itself might never be reached, it motivates the development of people, since it gives them a sense of direction and a sense of meaning. In this way purpose functions as an ultimate motivator. Important for goal-directedness is to have plenty of motivation to pursue the goal and actively engage whit it (Bronk, 2014). Personal meaningfulness is about how the goal at stake needs to be central and significant to the person who it’s concerning. Apart from these main dimensions of purpose mentioned in literature, there is another dimension of purpose that some researchers use. The work of Frankl (1959 as cited in Bronk, 2014) and the more recent work of Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003) highlight how purpose is also about ‘a focus on impacting the world beyond-the-self.’ (Bronk, 2014, p.6). Having a purpose is not only about pursuing a

personally meaningful aim, instead this aim should also focus on having a positive impact on the world. This dimension makes purpose a moral goal. A definition of purpose that takes all these aspects into account is the widely adopted definition used by Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003). They define purpose as ‘a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self’ (Damon, Menon & Bronk, 2003, p. 121). Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003) explain that in this definition all aspects, including the beyond-the-self dimension, are taken into account, which makes it clear that purpose is crucially different from a self-oriented life goal which doesn’t have to be moral at all.

Last year Malin (2018) wrote a book about teaching for purpose in which she defines purpose in a different way, while also including the beyond-the-self dimension. She divides the

meaningful goal, (2) motivation stemming from a desire to contribute to the world beyond the self, and (3) goal-directed activity’ (Malin, 2018, p.77). She also points out the strengths which enable these dimensions to develop properly, these strengths are: self-regulation (the set of skills that enable students to select appropriate goals and regulate their behaviour to pursue

their goals); agency (students’ ability to take effective action and determine that their actions are having the desired impact in the world); and values (a strong sense of what matters to them and why, and awareness of what they believe is good and right for the world).’ (Malin, 2018, p.80). According to Malin (2018) self-regulation is necessary for committing to and acting on meaningful goals (dimension 1 and 3), value reflection is necessary to choose and commit to meaningful goals and to find and foster a motivation beyond the self (dimension 1 and 2) and agency is necessary to effectively act on meaningful goals and also foster

motivation beyond the self (dimension 2 and 3). Although Malin (2018) defines purpose in her own way, it’s not much different from the generally excepted definition of Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003). Firstly, in both definitions goal directedness or having a

meaningful goal is central. Secondly, commitment to that goal or intentional goal activity is important. Thirdly, the goal has to be meaningful for the self as well as for the world beyond the self. The notable difference is how, in the definition of Malin (2018), the aspect of personal meaningfulness is interwoven in her concept of ‘meaningful goals’ whereas in the above-mentioned research it’s described as a separate dimension. However, in content the definitions fit well together. Therefore, in this research the definition of Damon is used (2003), but the strengths to foster the dimensions of purpose mentioned by Malin (2018) are a useful addition to the existing theory and will be taken into account later on when purposeful teaching is discussed.

§2.2. What influences purpose

Although the proposed definition of purpose is said to be a moral one, because of the beyond-the-self dimension, purpose doesn’t necessarily have to be moral: a purpose including the beyond-the-self dimension can be immoral as well. Bronk (2014) takes Hitler as an example and points out that for him trying to get rid of Jews was probably some kind of purpose. That said, in this thesis and in most research the definition of Damon, Menon and Bronk (2003) is

used to focus on noble or moral goals. To call a purpose noble ‘the why of the deed as well as its how must be guided by a strong moral sense’ (Damon, Menon and Bronk, 2003, p.12). Another common misconception about purpose is that people would only have one purpose for the rest of their lives. People can have more than one purpose during their lifetime or even at the same time (Bronk, 2014; Malin, 2018). Purpose can also change over time (Malin, 2018). However, Damon (2008) points out that different purposes are often tied together, since people only have a limited amount of time to find and pursue a purpose. These different purposes can be derived from many sources, but taking all research together purposes are usually derived from and appear through engagement in religion, careers, families (and friends), civic activities and artistic pursuits (Bronk, 2014).

What’s more, even though having a purpose means that you’re directed by a long-term goal, the way towards that purpose is mostly not a straight, but a meandering one. Even though purpose is something that comes from within, it’s also influenced by external forces that are unpredictable: ‘It is not that purpose lacks direction, but it is a direction that allows for experiencing more of life than a direct path can provide.’ (Malin, 2018, p. 33). One of the metaphors used to describe purpose is a boat on open water that is influenced by wind, but guided by light that helps it to keep moving forward (Moran, 2017).

One of these forces that influence purpose is culture. A culture in itself influences people’s purpose, because it provides models of meaning, default ideals, informs how and which emotions should be felt, defines proper behaviour and interaction norms and defines valued roles and social relationships (Grouzet et al., 2005; Moran 2012; 2015; 2016 as cited in Moran, 2017). Even though a purpose is chosen by a person itself and is personally

meaningful, personal meaning is influenced by cultural norms. To be able to pursue a certain purpose actions need to be accepted by the community (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003 as cited in Moran, 2017). Moran (2017) names three sources that influence purpose development: values, norms and institutions. Values make out what’s important in life within a certain culture (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001 as cited in Moran, 2017), norms are the rules, sanctions and behavioural expectations based on those values (Bendor & Swistak, 2001; Shteynberg,

Gelfand & Kim, 2009 as cited in Moran, 2017) and institutions are social structures formed by norms and also shaping values and reinforcing norms (Schwartz & Sagie, 2000 as cited in

Moran, 2017). Values, norms and morals defer per country. Morals are integrated quite young and form the basis on which people often subconsciously judge actions (Moran, 2017). Quite some research has been done lately to show the cultural dimension of purpose. Kawai and Moran (2017) point out the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Western countries, including the Netherlands, are individualistic, independent cultures that see the concept of self as ‘separate of others, who make agentic choices that affirm

uniqueness, expression and autonomy, and whose own thoughts and feelings are the drivers of actions and outcomes.’ (Kawai & Moran, 2017, p. 324). Asian countries, but also African countries, are collectivistic, interdependent cultures that see the concept of self as

‘interconnected with family and community, who aims to belong and contribute to the larger group’s goals, and whose actions and outcomes are determined by social and interpersonal influences.’ (Kawai & Moran, 2017, p. 324). This influences purpose, since, for example happiness and success relate to individual recognition in the US and more to smooth relationships in Japan (Heine et al., 2001; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009 as cited in Kawai & Moran, 2017). Moreover, meaning making is something collaborative in Japan and therefore social emotions are considered the most important for meaning making, not self-expression like in western countries. Since Japanese are raised in a collectivistic culture in which the consideration of others is important for making decisions and taking action the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose is almost unnecessary to mention. In a research about enhancing life purpose among Thai adolescents it was also clear that, even during present times of societal change, the purposes of these adolescents were mainly focused on collectivistic, traditional values and goals such as getting a job that benefits society or taking care of the family (Balthip, McSherry, Petchruschatachart, Piriyakoontorn & Liamputtong, 2017). In a South-African study about conceptions and enactment of purpose it also became clear that purpose reflects the African collectivistic culture and worldview. Here, the connection to family and community is very important, as is the connection to God and nature (Mason, 2017). In another study about life aspirations, values and moral foundations in Mongolian youth collectivism again played an important part. Moral foundations like authority and loyalty were perceived as more important than individualistic moral foundations such as care and fairness (Bespalov, Prudnikova, Nyamdorj & Vlasov, 2017).

That said, through globalization and technology western ideas are taken over in collectivistic countries. In Iran the majority of youth today has self-oriented life goals related to pleasure-

and status seeking (Hedayati, Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2017) just like in western countries (Moran, 2017). In Japan individualistic collectivism is arising, which combines harmonious relations with agentic drive (Sugimura & Mizokami, 2012 as cited in Kawai & Moran, 2017). An Israelian study also points out that there are fewer differences in meanings in life between ethnic groups now, because of globalization (Bar-Tur, Savaya & Prager, 2001 as cited in Heng, Blau, Fulmer, Bi & Pereira, 2017). Moran (2017) explains that due to globalization individuals nowadays are interconnected. Societies become more and more culturally diverse and through digital communications people from all over the world influence each other. She defines the morality of purpose as: “a personal ‘thread’ within societies’ ‘tapestry’ – one person’s purpose intertwines with others’ through engagement with and evaluation of each other’s contributions to society’s or individuals’ well-being.” (Moran, 2017, p. 231). She points out that nowadays people from different cultures weave their personal thread into a multicultural tapestry. Since different cultures have different morals, but people from different cultures interact more and more nowadays this can be a challenge. In this case, active

meaning making is necessary ‘ideally through dialogue by which the moral contours of the interaction can be built together rather than unilaterally.’ (Moran, 2017, p. 239). Since

traditional institutions in countries are slowly losing their power individuals need to find their own way or, as Moran (2017) calls it, self-institutionalize themselves (Moran & Opazo, 2016 as cited in Moran, 2017). Having a purpose helps with this and can function as an anchor. (Moran, 2014 as cited in Moran, 2017).

§2.3. Purpose as part of moral development

Since purpose is about what somebody wants to achieve and who one wants to become, it’s related to identity development. Identity development is about finding out who one is and what one’s place is in the world (Erikson, 1968, 1980 as cited in Bronk, 2014) and is a central process for healthy development especially during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Erikson, 1968 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Healthy identity development results in the development of and commitment to personal values and beliefs and a feeling of knowing who one is (Erikson, 1980 as cited in Bronk, 2014). During adolescence values and believes are not only developed, ideologies based on those values and beliefs are also developed (Malin, 2018). This, in turn, often leads to reflection on what one hopes to become and goals one hopes to accomplish (Erikson, 1980 as cited in Bronk, 2014). In other words: healthy identity development is the basis for purpose development. Where identity development focuses on who one is, purpose development focuses on what one hopes to achieve (Bronk,

2011 as cited in Bronk, 2014).The relation between the two concepts is not one sided, but works in both directions: purpose development can also stimulate identity development (Bronk, 2011 as cited in Bronk, 2014). When youth is actively engaged in, for example, voluntary work, they develop skills to solve social problems which can become meaningful and important to them. While being busy actualising this purpose they can start to see themselves as a social person who enjoys volunteer work and in that way develop a certain identity because of the opportunity they got. This growing sense of identity in turn also stimulates the ongoing development of purpose and fosters a deeper connection to this purpose (Bronk, 2011 as cited in Bronk, 2014). However: ‘while all youth eventually explore and/or commit to an identity, only a relatively small proportion of young people discover their purpose.’ (Bronk, 2014, p.72). Only twenty-five percent of the youngsters has a clear life purpose (Bronk et al., 2010; Damon, 2008; Francis, 2000; Moran, 2009 as cited in Bronk, 2014). This is unfortunate, since having a purpose can help youth to transition to adulthood with an effective and positive sense of identity (Burrow et al., 2010 as cited in Bronk, 2014). The reason why all youth explores or commits to an identity, but not to a purpose could be explained by the fact that purpose is a moral concept and identity is not inherently moral. This is why Malin (2018) relates purpose development to moral identity. Adolescence is not only an important time for identity development, but also for social- and moral development. Regarding social development, teenagers develop social agency, which means they start to see the impact they can have in the world beyond themselves and start acting in the community to change things for the better. They come to see that they have control over their actions and thoughts. At the same time they develop social responsibility, since they see that their

contribution matters and feel that it’s their responsibility to contribute to society together with others. Regarding moral development, teenagers advance their moral reasoning skills by going from ‘simply being aware of the social rules that they should follow, to having more nuanced ideas about justice, fairness and equality.’ (Malin, 2018, p. 88) (Nucci & Turiel; Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011 as cited in Malin, 2018). Good social and moral development make sure that youth not only develop an identity, but a moral identity, meaning: ‘acting on the basis of respect and/or concern for the rights and/or welfare of others.’ (Moshman, 2011, p. 176 as cited in Malin, 2018, p.88). During adolescence moral identity grows from just wanting to be a good person to something more specific like wanting to be a person who would help others by advocating equal rights. Moral identity grows with experience and reflection on experience. It’s important that youth gets the opportunity to get involved in

prosocial activities, since these foster moral identity development. Having a clear moral identity forms a basis for pursuing a purpose, since it connects who one wants to become with a clear the-self dimension motivation. However, youngsters can also have beyond-the-self goals without having fully developed their moral identity, but then these goals are mostly directed towards their immediate environment. Malin (2018) gives the example of a eleven-year-old student who befriended students at her school that were bullied, so (s)he could make the world a better place.

§2.4. Importance of purpose

As we’ve seen, in western countries the majority of youth today have self-oriented life goals related to pleasure- and status seeking (Moran, 2017, 2009). This trend is spreading to other countries due to globalization. Also, a large number of youth in the west lack a sense of direction and are not realistically pursuing a future goal (Damon, 2008; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2016). This is a problem, since having a purpose is a core component of positive youth development and human well-being and can function as a moral beacon (Bronk, 2014). Having a purpose causes positives effects like moral commitment, prosocial behaviour, high self-esteem and achievement throughout the rest of the life span (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980 as cited in Damon, 2008), whereas a lack of purpose causes apathy and stress (Damon, 2008). Since youth is seen as the formative period for cultivating purpose, it’s important to foster it then. As we’ve seen, during youth people start connecting with motivating believe systems that reflect purpose. When they don’t dedicate themselves to a purpose during their youth it becomes difficult to find a motivating believe system later in life (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980 as cited in Damon, 2008). However, even before youth or adolescence children take part in purposeful activity that can later become a fully formed purpose (Bronk, 2011; 2012; Damon, 2008 as cited in Bronk, 2014). ‘experiences in childhood can set the stage for the subsequent development of purpose.’ (Cotto Bronk, 2014, p.69). Malin (2018) explains that children explore what they find meaningful or what they value and adolescents develop purpose, since their (social) identity is more fully formed: ‘They will begin to think about long-term goals and who they want to become, and how they might contribute to the world through their unique strengths and values.’ (Malin, 2018, p. 53). That said, it’s difficult to define a certain age when childhood ends and adolescence or youth begins. At which age are people able to have a purpose? Malin (2018) describes that in earlier research she did (2006) children from eleven year onwards showed signs of purpose. She also describes that students

in the fifth grade (ten years old) ‘are already developing the agency and autonomy to see themselves as someone who can take action to make a plan, organize others, and procure resources when there is an idea to pursue.’ (Malin, 2018, p.150). Moran (2009) researched how common it is for youth to have a purpose and discovered that even though American sixth graders (twelve years old) were less likely to have a purpose than college students, sixteen percent of them did have a fully formed purpose. According to these findings age, opportunities and experience matter in purpose development, but purpose can be developed at a young age. Moran (2009) even mentioned a child that was pursuing her purpose already from the age of nine. Kawai and Moran (2017) argue that purpose development starts at the age of eleven, ‘when abstract thinking develops’ (Kawai & Moran, 2017, p.329). So, looking back at the lack of attention for broad personal development or Bildung in schools, the lack of youngsters feeling purposeful and the fact that youth is the formative period for cultivating purpose, it is clear that it would be a good thing if purpose development would be a part of schooling (Koshy & Mariano, 2011).

It’s important to foster purpose in schools, since the educational environment, together with the social and religious environment, has a big influence on a person’s purpose (Massey, Gebhardt & Garnefski, 2008; Moran, 2014; McInerney, Liem & Ortega, 2010 as cited in Balthip et al., 2017). Schools are important places for the development of purpose (Mason, 2017; Tirri, Moran & Mariano, 2016 as cited in Shin, Kim, Hwang & Lee, 2018; Mariano, 2011 & Pizzolato et al. 2011 as cited in Bronk, 2014). ‘Purpose develops as meaningful opportunities to engage other people are discovered, fostered, pursued, and concretised with the support and guidance of teachers’ (Araujo, Arantes, Danza, Guimarães & Garbin, 2016, p. 559). Especially for youth who are still developing their purpose and are figuring out how to pursue it, the school is a critically important place to help them with this (Bronk, 2014). Values, norms and cultural institutions like schools socialize youth by telling them what is (un)important, what are desired life orientations and which emotions are normal to feel and express (Moran, 2017). Schools are also places where students have access to media and materials that help develop meaning making and abstract thinking (Malin, 2018). Lastly, schools are places where students are exposed to caring adults who can guide them in developing a purpose (Araujo, Arantes, Danza, Guimarães & Garbin, 2016 as cited in Damon, 2009).

§2.5. Purposeful teaching

Research shows that everybody is able to find a purpose, purpose can be taught (Benson 2006; Damon, 2008) and teachers are crucially important in fostering youth purpose (Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Tirri, 2014; Tirri & Ubani, 2013; Damon, 2009; Mariano, Going, Schrok & Sweeting, 2011). Tirri et al. (1999) describe the teacher as a professional with moral competence, ‘which includes responsibility for the students’ moral growth in such areas as ethical behaviour, finding a purpose in life, and developing a growth mindset’ (Tirri et al., 1999 as cited in Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017, p.104-105). Even though teachers should foster purpose very little is known about how they should do that. Researchers do propose ways to teach purpose theoretically, but the effectiveness of these methods is rarely tested and so they should be evaluated empirically (Bronk, 2014). Malin (2018) confirms the lack of empirical research done on purposeful teaching saying there are no scientifically proven strategies to teach purpose and there is no widely accepted way to foster purpose in instruction or curriculum. There are theories about purpose development and pedagogical ideas that align with those theories, but there are no empirically proven ways to teach purpose effectively. Kuusisto, Gholami and Tirri (2016) also point out that ‘teaching purpose in school and in teacher education programmes has not been extensively studied as yet, while instructional approaches to purpose studies have been neglected.’ (Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016, p. 542). Finally, Mason (2017) says it’s necessary that further research on purpose should be focussed on practice, on developing and evaluating programs to teach purpose. Because of this lack in empirical research, the aim of this thesis is to see how teachers foster purpose in their classrooms. However, first we look at known ways to foster purpose.

There are different generally shared ideas about how to foster purpose at school. Firstly, it’s been said that having concrete experiences can be critical to develop purpose (Kawai, 2012; Kawai & Mizokami, 2013; Malin et al., 2013; Moran, 2010; Moran et al., 2012 as cited in Kawai & Moran, 2017). By taking action students can grow into a purpose and develop a certain future life perspective (Kawai & Moran, 2017). Araujo, Arantes, Danza, Pinheiro and Garbin (2016) point out that purpose can be fostered when the teacher gives the students contextualised situations where they can develop self-knowledge about their feelings and values and wherein the beyond-the-self dimension is made visible. The learning methods that Araujo et al. (2016) bring forward that are based on providing students with contextualised situations are more often associated with fostering purpose, they are: problem-based learning, project-based learning and design thinking. These learning methods have in common that they

all make values and goals apparent and connect personal meaning with needs and possibilities of the community. Therefore, there is an emphasis on the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose. Problem-based learning is ‘a pedagogical strategy for posing significant, contextualised, real-world situations, and providing resources, guidance and instruction to students as they develop content knowledge and problem-solving skills.’ (Araujo et al., 2016, p. 559). Project-based learning is a method in which goals are selected based on values and subsequently acted upon in the real world. Lastly, design thinking is about producing innovative services and products in a multidisciplinary way. Using these methods purpose is contextualised, active, other-oriented and thus prosocial and moral. Also, these methods create a moral atmosphere at school which not only supports students’ purposes, but also those of teachers (Araujo et al., 2016). Similarly, Shin et al. (2018) point out that service-learning is a method that promotes purpose development. In service-service-learning students get opportunities to get involved with community needs, so that they understand the content of the course while at the same time developing their morality by addressing their civic responsibility. Shin et al (2018) conclude that in order for service-learning to foster purpose enough choices in volunteer organizations and good monitoring are needed, so that intrinsic motivation is addressed. Also, there need to be mentors that give good informative feedback and who support students, so the students feel more connected and enjoy the activity more. Secondly, constructivist teaching strategies based on connecting learning with students’ personal aspirations and experiences are said to foster purpose (Nash, 2008 as cited in Cotton Brronk, 2014). Within a constructivist approach students are asked frequently about their passions or interests and students are stimulated to engage in classroom conversation about their passions. In this approach, student voice is important as is recognizing challenges in the pursuit of purpose and taking measured risks (Nash, 2008 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Thirdly, it’s very important for purpose development that a teacher provides opportunities and is supportive. Through opportunities students can expand their interests and learn about what their goals are and which purpose they would like to pursue (Bronk, 2014). Through getting support self-worth is stimulated and students will keep on pursuing what they’re doing (Balthip et al., 2017). Fourthly, to foster purpose it’s important to ask students stimulating questions about what they value, aspire and find important and make room for stimulating discussion and reflection about it (Balthip et al., 2017; Bronk, 2014). The questions asked should not only be about students, it’s also good to ask why content that needs to be learned is important (Damon, 2009 as cited in Cotton Bonk, 2014). These kind of questions will help students connect their personal goals with their schoolwork, which makes it more meaningful

(Van Dyke & Elias, 2007 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Through these conversations initial sparks for purpose can be discovered (Benson, 2006 as cited in Bronk, 2014) and ways to continuously act on purpose can be found (Cotton Bonk, 2014). Fifthly, to foster purpose it’s important to be a good role model of pursuing purpose yourself (Balthip et al., 2017). In this regard teachers can share their own search for purpose (Bronk, 2014). Moreover, space for reflection is needed to integrate opportunities, skills, interests and goals into a purpose (Moran, 2009) and to let students see how they can impact the world beyond themselves (Bronk, 2014). Lastly, it’s important for teachers to model servant leadership, which means that they don’t lead and just transfer knowledge, but they guide learning experiences of students. In this way the classroom is more of a community where the teacher and students are helping each other and students feel confident to act. This kind of environment in the classroom is likely to foster the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose (Herman & Marlowe, 2005 as cited in Bronk, 2014). In this regard, Araujo et al. (2016) also describe the role of the teacher as not just sending knowledge, but as being a tutor that gives students a voice, promotes cooperative learning, supports curiosity and tries to make students find their own answers and make them autonomous. The classroom environment is interactive and the relationship between the teacher and the students is close: ‘teachers develop close relationships with students and serve as mediators between students’ growing purposes and the world so they can open new possibilities to the students.’ (Araujo et al., 2016). Bronk (2014) concludes that approaches to teach purpose share the following features: ‘In a variety of ways, they encourage and inspire students to consider their personal values and aspirations, how classroom learning relates to the things that matter most to them, and ways they can contribute to the broader world.’ (Bronk, 2014, p. 101).

Apart from general notions on how to foster purpose, Tirri and Kuusisto (2017) used the didactical triangle as a theoretical model to concretely

describe how to teach purpose. According to Tirri and Kuusisto (2017) purpose can be taught in three different ways (see fig.1.). First, purpose can be the content of teaching. Here, the teacher can explain what purpose is and can discuss different purposes of students. Second, it’s important to foster purpose by focussing on the didactical relation between the teacher and the students’ learning process.

The teacher can help the students to illuminate their purpose by helping them to find meaning or personal relevance within any subject being taught and by creating space for classroom interactions. Third, the pedagogical relation between the teacher and the students is important. This relationship needs to be close and safe, so that ‘the deepest aspirations, personal values, and private beliefs can be confronted, acknowledged, and experienced together’ (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2017, p.5). To foster purpose, the teacher has to create a supportive and safe classroom atmosphere, where students can discuss, reflect and ask questions.

Based on previous studies, Kuusisto, Gholami and Tirri (2016) present four important elements for purposeful teaching: discussing purpose (Malin et al., 2014; Bundick, 2011 as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016), teaching future planning (Bundick & Tirri, 2014; Nurmi, 1991 as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016), teaching consequences (Damon, 2008 as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016) and teaching importance (Damon, 2009; Ubani, 2013 as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016). Kuusisto, Gholami and Tirri (2016) used a survey from Bundick and Tirri (2014, as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016) in their empirical study, which

operationalizes these elements. They modified the survey to fit teachers’ self-ratings about wheather they are teaching purposefully, since originally the survey was designed to let students evaluate how purposeful the teaching of their teachers is (see fig 3.).

According to Malin (2018) purpose should not only be taught by attending to the dimensions of purpose itself, but also by developing the strengths that make them come about. To foster meaningful goals it’s important to give attention to the strength of values. The teacher should give his or her students time to reflect on their values, on what they think is important and why, since when values are in place, value-driven (moral) goals can develop. Those goals can consequently be achieved by more short-term, intermediate goals which might be academic goals. When academic goals are indeed seen as a way to achieve that long-term moral goal,

Figure 3: Operationalized elements for purposeful teaching (Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016, p.549)

they support purpose development. Secondly, the strength of self-regulation will foster meaningful goals, since self-regulation skills like resource identification, persistence and delayed gratification will help students to be able to pursue their meaningful goal. What’s important is that students learn how to form and follow a meaningful goal. It’s not important if the purpose of that moment sticks, it’s important that students gain the experience and develop the skills to be able to have a meaningful goal. This goal setting can be fostered by: ‘providing opportunities for meaningful project work that requires students to identify goals that align with their values, setting high expectations for students in terms of their future-thinking, and by creating an environment of encouragement and respect so students can feel that their goals are supported and matter.’ (Malin, 2018, p.86). To foster the beyond-the-self motivation the strength of values needs to be fostered by reflecting on students’ central values and exploring the extent to which they align with their moral identity and are driven by beyond-the-self motives. In this case it’s important for students to have an adult role-model who acts morally and prosocial. The most important strength to foster however is social agency, which is about ‘recognizing that one’s actions have a desired effect in the world’ (Malin, 2018, p. 90). Social agency can be developed by providing real-world experiences wherein students can develop this strength. To foster goal activity the strength of self-regulation needs to be fostered. This strength connects the meaningful goal with the actual goal activity, since it’s about developing and pursuing one’s goals. Purpose can be created within an activity, because that activity creates a spark for purpose that is later reflected upon or the already existing purpose can direct and organize activities. Reflection is essential to see if the activities we do are in line with our meaningful goals, express our values and cause the beyond-the-self impact we hope for. Another strength that is important to foster is social agency. This is a type of action that’s not only autonomous, but also has influence on the world beyond-the-self. So, this strength connects goal activity with beyond-the-self motivation. To be able to foster goal activity it’s important to create opportunities where students can pursue their interests. Teachers can function as mentors, give support and encouragement and create opportunities where students can see the social impact they have, for example, after a community-based project.

To be able to foster the dimensions of purpose and their underlying strengths it’s very

important to have a purpose-supportive environment. This environment is not just close, safe and supported as mentioned by Tirri and Kuusisto (2017), but is characterized by Malin (2018) by: (student) voice, compassion, belonging, autonomy and relevance, social

responsibility and community of practice. Firstly, a teacher can make room for student voice by listening to his or her students to be able to get to know them authentically and actually give them a voice. Only then a teacher can discover the values, interests, strengths and goals of students and foster purpose. Students feel seen and acknowledged when a teacher listens which makes them open up more too. Also, making time for classroom discussions and letting students participate in decision making gives students a voice. This helps to foster purpose, since by speaking up students learn to show their interests, values, strengths and goals, learn to see the connection between the content of learning and their own interests and goals and see that they can have an impact (Malin, 2018). Going back to the importance of a safe atmosphere where students will continue to express themselves (Tirrri & Kuusisto, 2017), it’s important that student contributions are taken seriously and are respected (Malin, 2018). Secondly, Malin (2018) mentions compassion as a precursor of purpose. This concept is a useful addition to just having a safe and close atmosphere (Tirrri & Kuusisto, 2017), since a climate of compassion is not just about feeling safe, but about feeling cared for and about helping and caring for others, which can be related to the beyond-the-self dimension of purpose. To be able to create a compassionate classroom the teacher needs to model

compassion and ‘listen deeply to students and react with kindness and care. A compassionate teacher puts humanity before the demands of the system when responding to issues that arise with students.’ (Malin, 2018, p.107). Another way to foster compassion is by letting students check-in, which means they have a chance to express how they are to make sure if they are able to learn properly. Being compassionate goes beyond listening and caring for students, it’s also important that the teacher has high expectations within reasonable limits. The teacher should show (s)he understands when it’s hard, but is going to be there to help. In this way the teacher creates challenges without releasing obligations (Malin, 2018). Thirdly, Malin (2018) mentions that it’s important that students feel that they belong in a school community, since when students have a feeling of belonging they are more engaged in school, have more positive feelings towards school, trust others within the school community more, internalize it’s values and are more intrinsically motivated. This makes them want to contribute to the school-community, which stimulates the strengths of social agency and beyond-the-self motivation and, since they are intrinsically motivated, makes them self-regulate and have higher expectations about reaching their future goals. Fourthly, Malin (2018) mentions that it’s important that students feel that they are autonomous and relevant. A sense of autonomy is important, since only then they will feel responsible for their own actions and will in turn learn the strength of self-regulation. When students experience autonomy they also feel room

to actually pursue personally meaningful goals instead of doing just what’s expected from them. Autonomy is supported in the classroom by giving students the freedom to choose within learning activities and letting the students express their opinions and ideas. Also, autonomy is supported by, similar to a didactical way to teach purpose described by Tirri and Kuusisto (2017), making the content relevant for students, since it creates responsibility for and more sense of control over this content. Fifthly, Malin (2018) mentions that it’s important that students feel social responsibility for the school community by recognizing their own role in creating a positive climate. It’s important that students feel cared for, feel a sense of

belonging and feel autonomous to be able to feel socially responsible for the classroom and school. Sixthly and lastly, Malin (2018) mentions that it’s important that the classroom is a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991 as cited in Malin, 2018), which means that ‘learning occurs through interaction among all members and is not just transmitted from a teacher to a student. All members of a community of practice contribute their ideas and expertise, changing the practice of the whole community through their participation.’ (Malin, 2018, p.113). This is in line with the aforementioned servant leadership in which the teacher guides the students and teacher and students are helping each other (Herman & Marlowe, 2005 as cited in Bronk, 2014). Making the classroom a community of practice fosters purpose, since it introduces students’ personal meaning into the classroom and connects this to the content being taught and it creates the possibility to develop a shared purpose or shared learning goals (Malin, 2018).

As described before, providing concrete experiences can be critical to foster purpose (Kawai, 2012; Kawai & Mizokami, 2013; Malin et al., 2013; Moran, 2010; Moran et al., 2012 as cited in Kawai & Moran, 2017) and one way to do it is by project-based learning (Araujo et al., 2016). In this regard, Malin (2018) selected the elements of project-based learning that specifically foster purpose and refers to them as the elements of purposeful projects. These elements can be adopted to not only make project-work, but any teaching method more purposeful. Malin (2018) describes that projects become purposeful when they are personally meaningful, inquiry-driven, collaborative and represent community building, sustain over time, involve reflection throughout, elevate students’ social awareness and when high expectations are set.

In purposeful projects students can develop skills that they need to pursue a purpose, but what’s necessary to achieve a sense of purpose is that students develop a moral identity which

can be addressed by a combination of social-emotional learning and character education. The curriculum of those subjects should be focused on internalizing social values, social agency and moral character traits (Malin, 2018). According to Malin (2018), to support the

development of moral identity and thus of purpose, teachers should focus on fostering empathy, values, a future-oriented mindset and power in students.

§2.6. Purpose in Dutch educational system

Since this thesis is set in the Netherlands in this paragraph is briefly looked at the Dutch educational system concerning purpose education. First of all, where teaching is seen as a moral profession in countries like Finland and Iran (Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016), in the Netherlands this is not the case. In the Netherlands teachers are not seen as morally

responsible for the holistic growth of students (Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016). Moral development, which includes purpose development, is not a part of the curriculum in the Netherlands (Visser, 2016). In a report of Platform Onderwijs 2032 about the curriculum of the future they advise primary and secondary education1 _{to pay more attention to}

qualification, societal preparation and personal development of students. The Institute for Curriculum Development tries to see what’s happening in education around the themes of societal preparation and personal development (Platform Onderwijs2032, 2016 as cited in Visser, 2016). The theme of societal preparation and specifically citizenship has gotten a lot of attention over the last years. Since 2006 citizenship education is a mandatory task for schools to pay attention to, so that schools prepare students to participate in the Dutch multicultural society. Indicators and core goals are developed, so the Education Inspectorate can check if schools are really promoting active citizenship and social integration. However, citizenship education has no specific curriculum and teachers aren’t well prepared to deal with diversity in schools (Thijs, Langberg, Berlet, 2009). The theme of personal development hasn’t gotten much attention. Education in personal development is defined by Platform Onderwijs2032 as motivating students in a broad sense, relating to what is appealing to students, but also letting students relate to things they normally won’t relate to. In this regard, the school fosters the development of autonomous adults that are societally responsible and helps students think about their personal aspirations and ambitions (Platform Onderwijs2032, 1 In the Dutch educational system primary school has eight grades (children are age 4 until age 12) and is followed by secondary school. Secondary school is divided in roughly three levels. Firstly, vmbo, which is preparatory secondary vocational education, takes four years and prepares for vocational education. Secondly, havo, which is senior general secondary education, takes five years and prepares for going to the university of applied sciences. Thirdly, vwo, which is university preparatory education, takes six years and prepares for university (Nuffic, 2019).

2016 as cited in Visser, 2016). Even though PlatformOnderwijs2032 mentioned the importance of personal development there is no advice for curriculum, indicators or core goals mentioned (Visser, 2016).

In the curriculum of primary education one of the learning paths is called ‘orientation on yourself and the world’. Within this learning path attention for personal and specifically moral development would be suitable. This learning path is divided by themes, which are: people and society, nature and technique, space and time. Within the theme ‘people and society’, which seems to be most suitable for moral development, there are two core goals that touch upon moral development:

Core goal 34: The students learn to take care of theirs and others physical and mental health. Core goal 37: The students learn to behave out of respect for generally accepted values and norms. (Tule, 2019)

Core goal 34 actually relates to social-emotional development, which is mentioned specifically within the learning path (Tule, 2019). However, since it relates to the development of personal qualities and skills and caring for, being open to and working together with others it relates to purpose development as well. Core goal 37 is described as knowing which norms and values are there in the Dutch culture instead of students developing their own meaning systems (Tule, 2019). It relates to purpose development, since purposes are built from the fundament of culturally formed norms and values (Moran, 2017), but it’s not about developing a personally meaningful purpose.

In secondary school the same tendency is seen: there is no specific curriculum for personal or moral development, but there are core goals thatcan be connected to it. There are two learning paths that remotely relate to purpose development, which are: ‘people and nature’ and ‘people and society’. Within the learning path ‘people and nature’ there is one goal that has to do with purpose development to some degree:

Core goal 35: The student learns about care and learns to take care of him- or herself, others and their environment, and how (s)he can positively influence the safety of him- or herself and others in different living conditions. (Overheid.nl, 2019).

In this core goal the beyond-the-self dimension is fostered by focussing the importance of taking care of not only yourself, but also of others. Within the learning path ‘people and society’ there is also one goal that partially has to do with purpose development:

Core goal 42: The student learns, in his or her own experience and in his or her own

environment, to recognize the effects of choices made in the area of work and care, living and recreation, consuming and budget, traffic and environment. (Overheid.nl, 2019).

As we’ve seen, teaching consequences of choices is a way to foster purpose development (Damon, 2008 as cited in Kuusisto, Gholami & Tirri, 2016). This core goal could make students think more carefully and make them reflect on choices made, so they can figure out what they want to do or who they want to become.

All in all, it’s quite clear that even though some core goals align with purpose development, in general no explicit attention is paid to purpose development or moral development in the Dutch curriculum for primary and secondary education. As a consequence, there is hardly any attention for moral development or purpose development in teacher training (Hartel, 2018). This is concerning, since to be able to foster purpose in students it’s important that the teacher him- or herself, being a central figure for purpose development in students, has a sense of purpose (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2016). In Finnish research it’s made evident that teachers’ purposefulness relates to their ability to teach purposefully and also relates to students’ purposefulness (Tirri, Moran & Mariano, 2016). What’s more, when teachers have a sense of purpose their resilience and professional growth is likely to be fostered as well (Tirri & Ubani, 2013 as cited in Tirri, Moran & Mariano, 2016). Tirri & Kuusisto (2016; 2017)

therefore call for more education in purposeful teaching in teacher training, which is certainly applicable for the Netherlands.

Chapter 3: Method

§3.1. Structure

This research is an empirical, qualitative social scientific multiple case study (Boeije, 2014) about ways to teach purpose. This research will bring about knowledge about how to teach purpose, a phenomenon that isn’t researched empirically and qualitatively like this before. Through interviews with and observations of six seventh and eighth grade primary school teacher’ s professional knowledge is gathered on this relatively unknown subject. First, a theoretical overview was written about what purpose is and what’s known about teaching purpose. Consequently, the theory was used to construct interview questions and an

observation guide. Within the observation guide, the teachers could each choose a topic they wanted the focus to be on regarding teaching purpose, so the research became more

personally relevant for them.

§3.2. Participants

The sample consisted of six Dutch seventh and eighth grade primary school teachers of four schools across the Netherlands. The teachers come from different schools with different pedagogical principles. To ensure anonymity, the names used to describe them are pseudonyms. Arthur is a thirty-four-year-old eight grade teacher with ten years teaching-experience. He teaches at a Free School in The Hague. A Free School is a type of school that is based on anthroposophical pedagogy founded by Rudolf Steiner, which focusses on the harmonious development of three spiritual forces: wanting, feeling and thinking. The goal of anthroposophical pedagogy is to capture the essence of things to be able to trace the essence of life. In this kind of school there is a lot of room for creativity (InfoNu.nl., 2019). Mona is a twenty-nine-year-old seventh and eighth grade teacher with three years teaching-experience. Maria is a twenty-six-year-old sixth and seventh grade teacher with four years teaching-experience. They both teach a combinational class at a regular public school in Lemmer teaching. Marco is a twenty-eight-year-old seventh grade teacher with eight years teaching-experience. Richard is a forty-six-yea-old eight grade teacher with twenty-four years teaching-experience. They both teach at a catholic Dalton school in Groningen. A Dalton school is a type of school that is founded by Helen Parkhurst (1887-1973) and is based on three pedagogical principles: freedom in restraint, autonomy and cooperation. The students are made responsible by getting freedom to choose, they are made autonomous by planning their own work and choosing to work in their own way at their own level and the students