Analysing The Benefits Of Students As Partners In Learning A Case Study

Analysing the benefits of students as ‘partners in learning’: A case study
Introduction
This essay will explore the notion of students as ‘partners in learning’ through the
case study of a small, independent educational organisation based in Hull.
I will address humanist learning theories and the values and methods embodied by
the organisation in order to understand the levels of participation encountered and to
gain insight into the benefits of this approach.
Arc, formally known as ‘The Humber Centre for Excellence in the Built Environment’,
is a small, independent charity based in Hull, East Yorkshire with the following
objective:
To advance the education of the people of the Humber area in the subject of the built
environment, in particular, but not exclusively, to establish a centre to provide a
showcase for good practice and design.
(Charity Commission, 2005)
Established in 2003, the organisation has delivered a range of learning activities to
young people and adults, as well as being a centre for design and architecture-
themed exhibitions and events. Arc has worked with people both in its building in the
city centre, and in various schools, community centres and other venues across the
city. Fundamentally, Arc works with schools but is an independent learning
organisation established and governed by a board of trustees.
The organisation’s website expresses some of the broader social aims:
We are a company with authority to lead, the creativity to inspire and the will to foster
positive social and environmental change with a focus on the built environment.
(Arc, 2011).

Analysing the benefits of students as ‘partners in learning’: A case study Hannah L. Cooper
2
In this essay I will explore the phrase ‘partners in learning’ and whether this is
reflected in the relationship that is held between Arc and its learners. I will refer to
humanist learning theories such as Abraham Maslow’s theories on motivations and
creativity; Carl Rogers’ client-centred therapy and views on student-centred learning;
as well as notions of empowerment through education expressed by Paulo Freire.
Motivations
Arc is not a school; it engages learners of all ages in tailor-made workshops, public
engagement and evening classes. In lieu of a more comprehensive investigation into
learner motivations, it is accurate to note that generally, attendance of Arc’s activities
is on a voluntary basis – be it an event for professionals, young people or a
community group. This non-compulsory facilitation of learning coincides with
humanist thinker Carl Rogers’ ideas of 1957 in which he reflects “…we would do
away with teaching. People would get together if they wished to learn” (Henderson
and Kirschenbaum, 2001:303). The motivation therefore often lies within the learner,
which is a fundamental difference to a school where attendance is normally
compulsory. I should also note that the Arc building does have visits by school
groups, and that whilst the teachers choose to bring pupils to Arc as a place of
interest and it is entirely optional for them to do so, the pupils, in this case, will be
obliged to follow the teacher’s plans.
I should also highlight other motivations behind Arc’s work – those of its funders. Arc
is a registered charity and not-for-profit company, funded by a mixture of
organisations, including local and national arts, heritage and governmental bodies.
Funding for projects is normally obtained by funding proposal, but sometimes

3
agencies approach Arc for specific project work. Individual projects are therefore
governed by specific aims that have been agreed by the organisation and the funder.
Empowerment of the ‘oppressed’ and learning as a process - Paulo Freire
Paulo Freire, in ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’, writes of “dehumanization” and states
that “the great humanist and historical task of the oppressed” is “to liberate
themselves and their oppressors as well” (Freire and Macedo, 2001:46). This is the
political basis of his educational theory.
Arc was founded to respond to the need for community involvement at a time of
increasing investment in the region’s built environment. I understand that there was a
need felt for a responsive community; for people to take action and to develop an
enquiring role in society; what Freire called a “critical consciousness” (Freire and
Macedo, 2001:82). The wider involvement of the public in planning the future of any
city was something advocated by Freire:
it is the position of progressives and democrats who see the urgency of the presence of
the popular classes in the debates on the destiny of the city.
(Freire and Macedo, 2001:243)
Freire also defined the “banking” concept of education as the process of knowledge
being imparted by the “expert” teacher to the “passive” and “uneducated” students.
Freire rejected the “narrative character” of this relationship (Freire and Macedo
2001:67-69); Arc too does not generally adopt traditional teaching methods, nor are
the intended learning outcomes traditional in the sense of being aimed at passing
examinations or being graded.
This notion of education is a very straightforward one, and would fundamentally jar
with an organisation such as Arc that is dealing with the on-going process of change

4
and in planning the future of a city; where knowledge alone is not enough; deeper
issues such as empowerment and socio-economic factors must be considered.
Susie Hay, a former trustee of Arc, referred to the notion of learning as a process:
“People can aspire, with some learning, to go on a journey” (Arc, 2006). This value of
facilitating learning in order to embark on a life-long process is another sentiment
echoed by the humanist Carl Rogers’:
Changingness, a reliance on process rather than upon static knowledge, is the only
thing that makes any sense as a goal for education in the modern world.
(Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:304)
The “person-centered” approach – Carl Rogers
Humanist Carl Rogers based his “person-centered” approach to education on one
core value; trust, which he believed was lacking in contemporary society:
Almost all of education, government, business, much of religion, much of family life,
much of psychotherapy, is based on a distrust of the person.
(Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:136-137).
According to Rogers, to not trust the learner is to not have faith in “the capacity of the
human organism” (Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:309). It is interesting to
consider whether Arc’s wider aims are underpinned by a general trust and
confidence in local people, or whether the establishment of an organisation aiming at
furthering the ‘education’ of its community could be deemed condescending and
conversely, distrustful. Without a faith in people, Arc could not have the confidence
in its own ambitions to “inspire” and “foster positive social and environmental
change” (Arc, 2011), but the delicacy of this issue of trust and in how the
organisation could be perceived means that it is even more important that Arc works

5
with its learners as partners, and not as an organisation imposing things onto its
community.
Aspiring to educate and thus develop people’s knowledge of and participation in their
built environment, Arc could indeed be called what Rogers described as a “growth-
promoting climate” (Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:135). Subject areas
covered in Arc’s learning activities include architecture, sustainability and the built
environment, as well as traditional subjects such as history and art and design.
However, the mission of the organisation is not simply to explore these subjects in a
traditional approach – if it were, Arc would be no different to a school. With parallels
to Freire’s “banking” concept, Rogers’ criticised the same traditional educational
approaches that he termed instead the “‘jug and mug’ theory of education” (Freiberg
and Rogers, 1994:211-212).
Another important value encouraged by Rogers was the “empathetic understanding”
of the learner (Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:310), which is key for an
organisation working with such a broad spectrum of learners in terms of socio-
economic backgrounds, ages and professions. In order to further the knowledge of
wide range of people on a hugely varied and complex subject, it is necessary for
their context to be understood in order to understand their current knowledge and
abilities as well as any factors that may influence their development or capability to
exercise their knowledge.
Rogers placed a firm belief in “facilitative leadership”, in shared responsibility
between the facilitator and their learning community, in student-led learning and in
“self-discipline” (Freiberg and Rogers, 1994:212-213). When the results of Rogers’
approach are described, the parallels to Arc’s wider social aims are clear:

6
When this philosophy is lived, it helps the person expand the development of his or her
own capacities … It empowers the individual, and when this personal power is sensed,
experience shows that it tends to be used for personal and social transformation.
As well as the values described above, Arc also values equality between learners
and facilitators, and the work undertaken by the organisation involving dialogue,
consultation and interaction mean that the term ‘partners in learning’ is more
appropriate to describe the two-way relationship between the two. For example, the
role of an Arc facilitator may be to co-ordinate a session where the public are
informed about the planning process, and then feedback from them on a housing
scheme is obtained. In this case, both the organisation and the participants are
engaged in learning (learning respectively about the views and knowledge of the
participants and the design process) and both are also engaged as facilitators
(facilitating respectively by illustrating the design process and by contributing views
and knowledge).
Creativity – Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow
According to Carl Rogers, “Children are full of such wild, unusual thoughts and
perceptions, but a great many of them are trampled in the routine of school life”
(Freiberg and Rogers, 1994:177). Indeed the very notion of a traditional learning
environment means that interjections and questions from the learners are often
viewed as interruptions and are quickly answered or ‘hush-hushed’ with the purpose
of not letting the lesson plan or other learners become side tracked. Instead of
allowing for free-flowing, natural inquisition and learning to flourish, creative
tendencies can be stifled in order to concentrate and passively acquire knowledge.
Whilst I do not have the space or intention within this essay to critically investigate
wider political ideologies in terms of the link between systemised education and

7
preparing learners for work in later life, Carl Rogers’ own thoughts on the associated
benefits of developing and encouraging creativity as a characteristic are clear as he
wrote that a “creative person” is someone “most likely to adapt and survive under
changing environmental conditions” (Freiberg and Rogers, 1994:323).
Rogers identifies creativity as something intrinsically linked to a person’s psychology.
His above statement also demonstrates the relevance of creativity in terms of Arc’s
aims as an organisation hoping to enable people to face a changing built
environment.
Another person to write about creativity from a psychological point of view was
Abraham Maslow, who wrote about two levels of creativity; primary and secondary.
He believed that the “primary processes” are normally forgotten about as we become
accustomed to everyday adult life, because as well as providing us with the ability “to
play, to love, to laugh and… to be creative” these processes are viewed by ourselves
and society as “dangerous” (Maslow, 1987:165).
Believing that this aspect of human cognition should not be repressed, Maslow saw
value in using “education processes” in order “to accept and integrate the primary
processes into conscious and preconscious life”, and he wrote that “Education in art,
poetry, dancing can in principle do much in this direction” (Maslow, 1987:165).
Maslow was a proponent of the term “self-actualization” as “the full use and
exploitation of talents, capacities, potentialities, and the like” (1987:126). He defined
“self-actualizing creativity” as a way of functioning as a person, as something that is
not just about the creative outcomes or products made by a person:
It stresses characterological qualities like boldness, courage, freedom, spontaneity,
perspicuity, integration, self-acceptance, which make possible the kind of generalized

8
creativeness … which expresses itself in the creative life, or the creative attitude, or the
creative person.
(Maslow, 1987:167)
It is clear from Maslow’s words that creativity infers a host of other key
developmental characteristics or “needs”, all contributing to personal growth and
ultimately “self-actualization” (1987:56-61). As ‘needs’ and not ‘subjects’, I would
argue that they cannot be taught but can be encouraged, enabled or facilitated.
Maslow himself questioned how such things could be learnt, believing them to be
best acquired through real-life experience and events as opposed to traditional
learning, which he criticised in terms of the unquestioning reactions or “habits” that
are formed when responding to certain events and problems in life (1987:199-203).
Maslow, in a similar vein to Rogers and Freire, also believed that “the world is a
perpetual flux and all things are in process” (Maslow, 1987:200). The term ‘partners
in learning’ as opposed to ‘teaching’ accepts the notion of learning as a continuous
journey by inferring that there is no hierarchy of ‘learned’ people educating the
‘unlearned’ people; that there is equality between all parties in terms of the learning
process that is yet to be undertaken by both, and will be new for every different
encounter.
Applying the theories to Arc’s context
I have written so far on some humanist values and the evidence of these values at
Arc; it is important to remember the context of Arc’s mission – to educate people on
the built environment. It is interesting to consider the transferability to other learning
environments of, for example, the self-led study in schools documented in Rogers’
publication ‘Freedom to Learn’ (Freiberg and Rogers, 1994). In schools, pupils
normally study in the same place for five days every week, most weeks of the year

9
for several years, whereas involvement with Arc is normally for a more intense,
short-term period. This sets quite a different scene than one of a school, and puts us
at a disadvantage in terms of being unable to create long-term relationships with
learners, and not having time to understand their contexts and abilities.
In addition, when people come to Arc, they normally expect to learn about
architecture, sustainability or the built environment in some way. It is therefore
important in this context to consider Arc as a facilitator – an organisation that can be
drawn in when learners express an interest in learning more about the built
environment. It is up to the schools in question whether they use a democratic, self-
oriented learning process to arrive at the decision to involve us.
The outcomes of an example cited in ‘Freedom to learn’ in which the children were
leading their own work schedules at a school, express key developments in the
young people:
Day to day one can sense the growth in communication, in social development. One
cannot measure the different in attitude, the increased interest, the growing pride in self-
improvement; but one is aware that they exist.
(Freiberg and Rogers, 1994:78)
Although less tangible, the above outcomes are hugely relevant for personal growth
and could enable the young people not just to develop, but to self-sustain their own
development. In Arc’s context, it is outcomes such as these that would be seen as
enabling people to be more proactive in their environments.
I shall now explore some examples of Arc projects in order to identify whether the
‘partners in learning’ approach is evident, and if so, how beneficial it is.

10
Examples of Arc projects
- Community consultation
Arc has undertaken some projects involving public consultation; for example,
asking young people in Hull city centre what they thought about the public spaces
available to them. The outcome of such work would normally be a report written
up by Arc and fed to relevant professionals in order for them to use when
planning the design of new spaces and places. If this were considered in
traditional terms, the learner-student roles here are reversed and therefore could
be deemed by Freire to be heading towards “reconciliation”:
Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by
reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and
students.
Arc’s methods of consultation are always aimed at being informal and two-way;
for example through conversations as opposed to questionnaires. If Arc is aiming
to fully understand the needs of the people it works with, Freire would no doubt
view the conversational approach as fundamental to achieving this, as he said
that “Dialogue is indispensable in unveiling reality” (Freire and Macedo, 2001:77).
However, consultation can often be criticised by communities that have had the
opportunity to have their say but don’t see their opinions reflected in the resultant
decisions that are made – particularly in the case of regeneration, where
residents may complain about plans affecting their housing, but the plans go
ahead anyway. Allowing people to have their say is one thing – using that
information to make important decisions affecting their lives is a truly democratic
idea which is not always adhered to by governments and regeneration agencies.

11
Furthermore, the power structures present in the notion of the ‘agency’ consulting
the ‘public’ would no doubt render it as a questionable practice, possibly even an
oppressive act in itself by Freire:
Not even the best-intentioned leadership can bestow independence as a gift. … The
conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their liberation is not a gift bestowed
by the revolutionary leadership, but the result of their own conscientização.
What may at first appear to be a democratic process, when viewed in Freire’s
context, can soon appear tokenistic and, in the cases where public dialogue has
little impact, furthermore oppressive. Whilst Arc’s approach to consultation may
be aimed at creating a sense of equal dialogue, the very notion of ‘consultation’
infers two parties and normally two different levels of authority.
To summarise this example, the methodology used by the organisation embodies
the ‘partners in learning’ approach which enables fruitful discussion to take place;
however the motivations beyond Arc’s involvement often represent an unequal
and oppressive power structure.
- ‘Building on the building’
Rogers’ described the “facilitation of learning” as aiming:
to free curiosity; to permit individuals to go charging off in new directions dictated by
their own interests; to unleash the sense of inquiry; to open everything to questioning
and exploration
The above ‘freedoms’ were indeed granted in the Arc project ‘Building on the
building’; a project that invited local secondary school pupils to explore the design
of their school building, to visit other key local buildings, to work at Arc and
discuss issues arising from the critical investigation, to meet and talk with local

12
architects and to make a resultant film about their design recommendations,
which they edited themselves and later showed to the wider school community.
The project allowed for collaboration and autonomy, as encouraged by Rogers
and indeed Freire. The opportunity to be critical of their institution was
appreciated by the pupils and the investigation conducted by them resulted in a
potential change in their behaviour:
I think the best thing about this project has actually being critical of the school and I
think it will change the way I use the building
(Arc and Endeavour High School, 2009)
Learning circles were used in this project as a way of facilitating debate and
discussion – this is comparable to the “culture circles” used by Freire in his work
with adults in Recife, Brazil; “Instead of a teacher, we had a co-ordinator; instead
of lectures, dialogue; instead of pupils, group participants” (Freire and Macedo,
2001:81). A learning environment comprising of examinations and rigid content
imposes an impersonal structure onto the student and creates an imbalance of
equality between the learner and the facilitator. The benefits of this approach are
a feeling of greater equality between everyone involved – symbolised by the
‘circular’ approach to seating often used in contrast to more traditional classroom
set-ups with pupils facing the teacher. This in turn leads to a more informal
environment, which allows for honest dialogue and collaboration. Outcomes tie-in
with those cited above in ‘Freedom to Learn’; teamwork, creativity and
confidence-building take place whilst creating a more engaging and rewarding
session for participants. The ‘Building on the building’ project is illustrative,
therefore, of a project being undertaken by facilitators and participants as
‘partners in learning’.

13
Such circles are a feature of the ‘restorative practice’ method that is used in the
school and currently encouraged for cross-partnership working in the city of Hull
(llRP, 2010).
- The ‘Hullness’ project
Another key programme area of Arc’s is an investigation into the character of the
city of Hull; comprising of community debates that engage with residents of the
city (both adults and young people), a resultant exhibition and the creation of a
permanent archive of responses. As with all of Arc’s projects, ‘Hullness’ has a
focus on the built environment of the city, but has broader aims of engaging
communities and enabling them to use their voices in defining its character.
One of Arc’s roles in this project is to facilitate discussion, and having personally
been in this role, it is here that Rogers’ words ring true:
facilitating requires standing among others rather than standing apart. The best
facilitator blends in with the group.
(Freiberg and Rogers, 1994:103)
From my experience, it is through talking with people and creating a sense of
equality that a more open and honest dialogue is generated. The traditional
‘teacher-pupil’ style approach would not work at all in the ‘Hullness’ project; the
archetypal teacher as ‘expert and master’ and pupil as ‘uneducated and
uninformed’ is completely contradictory to the idea that the organisation is
learning and having the outcomes lead by the participants. A sense of equality
also helps to create an informal atmosphere which is important in enabling
discussions to develop organically; I have found that participants cannot generate

14
well thought out responses nor can they emotionally engage with the subject
matter simply on command.
In facilitating debate, Arc is learning not just from but with other people– this is a
key value in the facilitation approach, and why the term ‘partners in learning’ is
particularly relevant here.
A very interesting observation has been made by myself and my colleagues
during the course of the ‘Hullness’ debate facilitation in relation to participant
motivations and learner styles. Two debate sessions were held, one with young
people at a city-centre youth project, where they were invited to drop in and
participate after the project manager explained the concept to them at one of their
regular meetings. The second was held with older university students who were
brought to us as part of a site visit around the city centre. Both debates were
held in very similar styles and with similar sized groups, and what we found was
that the young people from the youth project were passionate, opinionated and
most of them shared their thoughts openly with us without needing much
prompting; whereas the university students were very apathetic, did not speak at
all aside from a few brief responses and were much harder to engage in
conversation. Reflecting on this experience and without having the space within
this essay to dedicate to a more thorough investigation of this situation, it is
interesting to consider the reasons behind the hugely apparent differences in
active participation in our project.
Were the university students apathetic because they were brought to us and the
session was ‘imposed’ on them and the youth project more engaged because
they had allowed us permission to go to them and chosen to participate, or are

15
there deeper issues evident of the difference in the participants’ learning
environments? We were surprised that the older participants with the more formal
educational background were the least interested in the project – and that the
young people from the youth project, having less formal educational
qualifications, demonstrated the most interest. On reading Freire’s critique of a
more traditional style of education I became less surprised at what we
encountered, and the fact that the university students were perhaps not as used
to engaging in critical debate and giving their opinions, as formal education does
not always provide this opportunity. In Freire’s terms, the group closest to the
state of being ‘educated’ would be the young people from the youth project, as
they were curious and actively engaging in dialogue about the world (Freire and
Macedo, 2001).
On reflection of this experience, not only can I liken the methodology of the
‘Hullness’ debates to a “Freirean education”, but also potentially the learning
environment at the youth project at which the students who felt enabled to
participate so actively were based:
Freirean dialogue desocializes students for passivity in the classroom. It challenges
their learned anti-intellectualism and authority-dependence (waiting to be told what to
do and what things mean)
(Leonard and McLaren, 2002:33)
- ‘Design Quality Indicators’
Rogers’ believed that ‘the only learning which significantly influences behaviour is
“self-discovered, self-appropriated learning” (Henderson and Kirschenbaum,
2001:302). In the UK today, many formerly traditional learning environments
strive towards some of the key principles found in the humanist learning theories.

16
There are numerous activities that incorporate elements of, for example, Rogers’
approach to learning, in how they may encourage self-led learning to an extent,
or facilitation as opposed to traditional teaching.
An example of a resource incorporating some of these values is the ‘Design
Quality Indicator’ (DQI) card that Arc has used in various workshops. Often
presented as hand-held cards with text boxes, they present the learner with
various questions regarding the quality, function and impact of a space. Learners
are given the cards and asked to respond to different questions, for example,
‘How does the space make you feel?’ or ‘Do you think the building is
sustainable?’ The questions provoke a qualitative and critical analysis, as the
words relate to emotions and not just facts. Although prompted, learners are
encouraged to actively investigate their environment and make their own findings
which, according to Rogers, will make a better impact on their behaviour
(Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001:302). The facilitator can also join in the
investigation with the participants so that they are working as ‘partners in
learning’.
Conclusion:
Having analysed key ideas from humanist learning theories alongside aspects of
Arc’s work, I can now begin to draw some conclusions in terms of the benefits of
students as ‘partners in learning’.
If learning motivation is present from both the learner and the facilitator; in other
words, if the facilitator is truly motivated to work with learners as partners in the
project and vice versa, genuine learning is more likely to take place. Understanding
motivations is important in ascertaining whether learner and facilitator are equal

17
partners in learning; or whether there are external motivations such as funding
requirements or pressure from a school.
Arc was founded with the liberal aims of benefiting its local community and aspects
of its wider ambitions are comparable to Freire’s, such as the advocating of a
widespread “critical consciousness” (Freire and Macedo, 2001:82). The organisation
also acknowledges learning as a ‘process’ – something that is recognised by
humanist thinkers on education.
Trusting learners and providing them with a supportive and understanding
environment in which responsibility for learning is shared greatly contributes to their
confidence and empowerment (Freiberg and Rogers, 1994 and Henderson and
Kirschenbaum, 2001) and this is something acknowledged and valued by Arc.
Working in partnership with its community will enable a trusting, equal relationship to
form and will prevent the organisation becoming dictatorial, condescending or
preachy.
Creativity and its many positive associated developmental characteristics can be
explored in many different ways and in different learning environments. It is an area
of relevance to an organisation such as Arc not just in terms of the more traditional
links between creativity and design, but for the encouragement of the deeper
creative self as defined by Maslow, with the aim of promoting self-actualization and
fulfilling Arc’s wider ambitions of individual empowerment.
Arc functions as a resource and as a learning facilitator, and whilst it can facilitate
student-led learning to a certain extent, there are pre-determined elements to the
learning content due to the organisation’s focus on the built environment.

18
Analysing some of Arc’s current and past projects, certain benefits have become
clear from the organisation using the ‘partners in learning’ approach:
A dialogical approach, as advocated by Freire (Freire and Macedo, 2001), in
community consultation projects enables an ultimately more liberating process.
However, the organisation needs to be aware of whether consultation as a process
of empowerment is carried through in the longer-term by external agencies.
The ‘building on the building’ project demonstrated a successful example of student-
led learning that stimulated creative thought and collaboration through the use of
learning circles.
The ‘Hullness’ project has humanist values embedded in its core purpose; to enable
the people of Hull to define the character of the city. A project that clearly
demonstrates a partnership in learning between the facilitators and the participants,
the method used and the people encountered on the way have clearly revealed
contrasting levels of engagement and participation from people with different
learning backgrounds. This in itself is illustrative of the importance of understanding
the learner’s background and context (Henderson and Kirschenbaum, 2001).
Despite not all learning environments allowing for complete student autonomy,
learning that encourages student-led learning can be facilitated where possible; such
as the ‘Design Quality Indicator’ cards used by Arc and other architecture centres.
In conclusion, the benefits of students as ‘partners in learning’ are significantly
grounded in humanist learning theories, evidence of which is clear in much of Arc’s
work. Such benefits achieve much more than just built environment education and
contribute to broader issues around personal development, and for this reason, the

19
‘partners in learning’ approach should be advocated alongside the broader aims and
ambitions of the organisation. Facilitators will continue to see such benefits if they
maintain an equal, partnered approach to learning, as well as keeping a balance
between funders’ demands.
References:
Arc (2006) Arc building story [Online video], 26 September 2007. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mng5aF2ChjI&feature=plcp&context=C3621431U
DOEgsToPDskIYO1dDyX0CxSEG3jNm7cFs [Accessed 2 January 2012].
Arc (2011) What we do [Online], Hull: Arc. Available: http://www.arc-
online.co.uk/home/what-we-do [Accessed 2 January 2012].
Arc and Endeavour High School (2009) Building on the building – an Arc school
project [Online video], 10 February 2010. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ITfA2R4_k&feature=plcp&context=C3bddcd8UD
OEgsToPDskIv2nuMc3uGaLuQw7BuLrgz [Accessed 8 January 2012].
Charity Commission (2005) Charity Framework for The Humber Centre for
Excellence in the Built Environment Limited [Online], Liverpool: Charity Commission.
Available: http://www.charity-
commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?Regist
eredCharityNumber=1107738&SubsidiaryNumber=0 [Accessed 2 January 2012].
Freiberg, H. and Rogers, C. (1994) Freedom to Learn. New York: Merill.
Freire, A. and Macedo, D. (Eds.) (2001) The Paulo Freire Reader. New York:
Continuum.
Henderson, V. and Kirschenbaum, H. (Eds.) (2001) The Carl Rogers Reader.
London: Constable.
llRP (2010) Restorative Practices in Hull: The First Restorative City (Trailer) [Online
video], 21 October 2010. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qc6zYvnvac&feature=related [Accessed 8
January 2012].
Leonard, P. and McLaren, P. (Eds.) (2002) Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter.
London: Routledge.
Maslow, A. (1987) Motivation and personality. New York: HarperCollins.

Analysing The Benefits Of Students As Partners In Learning A Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Analysing The Benefits Of Students As Partners In Learning A Case Study

Similar to Analysing The Benefits Of Students As Partners In Learning A Case Study (20)

More from Gina Rizzo

More from Gina Rizzo (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysing The Benefits Of Students As Partners In Learning A Case Study