Open Classrooms

Abstract

This article presents the history of Open Education in the U.S. and provides a discussion of its merits and criticisms. Open classrooms evolved from reforms made in British primary schools during and after World War II. Open education refers to a related set of ideas, methods, and loosely defined practices that characterize a highly individualized approach to early education. Open classrooms of the open-education era were based on architectural designs commonly used and popularized in elementary schools that consisted of large, undivided instructional spaces instead of traditional walled classrooms. The distinguishing features of an open arrangement are the learning activity centers established within a classroom to provide for different aspects of the curriculum. Students in an open classroom move freely from one activity center to another and from one small group to another. Open schools emphasize the needs, interests, motivation, and involvement of the individual student in the design of their own instruction. Past research syntheses have not reached clear-cut findings on generally accepted measures of progress, performance, and academic achievement for open-classroom students. Many positive outcomes for open education are claimed on different psychological-effect measures. Some educational researchers have identified open education as a failed innovation that has research to support it. As a result, various studies have questioned the desirability and advisability of extending the practice.

Overview

At its most basic level, open education refers to a related set of ideas, methods, and loosely defined practices (Noddings & Enright, 1984; Walberg & Thomas, 1972). Hare (1983) considered open education a "fashionable and influential idea." Open education is also referred to as informal education, humanistic education, affective education, and existential education (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Other names for open schools are informal schools or open-space schools (Featherstone, 1971). Open-education programs are variously referred to as open-space classroom designs, integrated-day plans, or Leicestershire models, the latter after the revolutionary programs of British primary schools (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Open classrooms are sometimes referred to as open-space classrooms (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988).

Open-education programs are characterized by a highly individualized approach to early education (Gage & Berliner, 1988). In fact, open classrooms at the elementary school level reinforced educational interest in the individualization of instruction, or simply, individualized instruction (Goldman, Wade, & Zegar, 1974). Open schools emphasized the needs, interests, motivation, and involvement of the individual student in the design of their own instruction (Packard, 1973). As a learner-centered curriculum design, the open classroom is focused on students, their self-directed learning, self-understanding, and self-concepts (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Students participate in learning activities based on their individual interests (Dillon & Franks, 1973). Table 1 examines the main characteristics of open-education classrooms.

The distinguishing features of an open arrangement are the learning activity centers established within a classroom to provide for different aspects of the curriculum (Karlin, 1980). Desks are pushed aside, and centers of enrichment are created for active, informal, and social learning (Schubert, 1986). There is, in fact, a common ideological link between these centers—whether called learning, activity, enrichment, or teacher centers—and open education (Yarger & Yarger, 1978). Nontraditional open schools emphasized a humanistic education without rigidity or inflexible structure (Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992). The planned progress and precise measurement of instruction associated with traditional classrooms gave way and were replaced by natural adjustment and students' spontaneous fulfillment in open classrooms (Packard, 1973).

Existentialism undergirds and supports open classrooms, and as such, it is the most appropriate metaphor of existential school classroom environment (Webb et al., 1992). Existentialist philosophy focuses on personal and subjective existence in a world where choice and responsibility are primary (Webb et al., 1992). The goal of an open education is "to produce educated people whose spirits, uniqueness, receptivity, curiosity, and sensitivity have not been impaired" (Karlin, 1980, p. 146).

In the twenty-first century, open classrooms and open education can also refer to a wider access to learning through shared educational resources online and eLearning.

History. The open-education, open-school, or open-classroom movement was an outgrowth of the Great Society of the 1960s (Webb et al., 1992). It was, in part, a response to the overemphasis on the disciplines approach of the 1950s and early 1960s (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). American educators bought into the idea of open classrooms, and they gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s (Schubert, 1986). As open education further developed and advanced during the 1970s, it transitioned from an ideology into an orthodoxy (Mai, 1978). Open education, touted to humanize elementary schools, ultimately wrought many changes in classrooms throughout the U.S. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988; Salz, 1974).

The term "open education" was coined in the U.S. (Sealey, 1976). However, the antecedents of the open-classroom approach, arrangement, and organizational model of instruction in American schools evolved and were patterned after reforms made in British primary schools (Karlin, 1980; Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988; Sealey, 1976). The concept of "open space" schools was based on a plan and a form of educational practice in which English students during World War II, to avoid bombing raids, were taken into informal, non-school, outdoor settings with large open spaces where teachers were forced to develop new modes of instruction (Schubert, 1986). English informal education, informal schools, and informal classrooms thus became precursory correlatives of American open education, open schools, and open classrooms (Grannis, 1973).

The U.S. open-education system operated on its own model with distinctly American components (Sloan, 1974). The programs, methods, and at least some of the "open" educational arrangements were vestiges of and modeled closely after those advocated by the progressive education movement (Webb et al., 1992). Progressivism was active in the U.S. from the 1920s to the mid-1950s (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Open education also had commonalities with approaches used in one-room schoolhouses of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Walberg & Thomas, 1972). The chief manifestation and most visible reflection of the open-education movement was the renewed and increased attention focused on students (Webb et al., 1992).

Open education was another of a long line of enthusiastic U.S. school reforms that meant different things to different people, and it came of age at different times and in different places (Ravitch, 1978). However, open education proved its importance in many ways to educational practice in a relatively brief span of time (Salz, 1974). During the heyday of the open-education movement, almost every major city and school district across the country had open schools and open classrooms (Salz, 1974). Open education was, in hindsight, a relatively short-lived phenomenon (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Some schools that were pioneers in the open-education movement eventually reverted to traditional classrooms. While the model of open education remained "salient and vital" to many educators, the open-education movement had come and gone by the 1980s (Noddings & Enright, 1984; Rothenberg, 1989). When the U.S. federal government became the prime source, mover, and governor of curriculum policy and began regulating funding, it effectively ended the open-education movement (Schubert, 1986).

There was a resurgence of interest in open classrooms in the 2010s, but many schools that experimented with the concept faced the same problems that arose in the 1970s.

Applications

Physical Environment. Open classrooms refer to architectural designs commonly used and popularized in elementary schools during the late 1960s and 1970s that consisted of large undivided instructional spaces instead of traditional walled classrooms (Webb et al., 1992). Although open classrooms were basically open instructional spaces (essentially "classrooms without walls"), they were not totally unstructured environments (Rothenberg, 1989; Webb et al., 1992). Open classrooms followed alternative organizational patterns of their own distinct designs, plans, and layouts (Kepler & Randall, 1977).

Open education utilized large open spaces where various groups of students could be involved in different activities simultaneously (Marzano et al., 2005). The general atmosphere of an open-classroom arrangement was informal. Students did not have their own assigned seats in an open-education classroom. There were various tables set up in different corners or areas of the open classroom at which students engaged in work and play (Gage & Berliner, 1988). The environment of the open classroom was dedicated to individual choice, unrestrained freedom of movement, and self-discovery (Webb et al., 1992).

On a superficial level, open education represented a relatively simple alteration in the physical structure of schools (Marzano et al., 2005). However, this simple physical change to open classrooms necessitated numerous other alterations in schools and teaching—for example, how teachers interacted, prepared for instruction, and presented content (Marzano et al., 2005). Teachers had to make special efforts to enrich the content and the physical accouterments of open classrooms (Schwartz, 1974).

Open-plan schools, constructed based on the decisions and dictates of architects and planners, prescribed organizational arrangements that were, in the end, obstructions to students' education (Rothwell, 1974). Buildings without internal walls did not necessarily translate into the creation of a set of circumstances wherein students were free to work at their own speeds and according to their own interests (Rothwell, 1974). The concept of open-space structures was endorsed by school administrators and other educational decision-makers without a feasible plan for working and operating under this curricular organization (Schubert, 1986). Teachers were not involved in the planning of physical facilities and were not consulted prior to the transformation. Therefore, there were only rare instances in which teachers and students successfully adapted to open spaces (Schubert, 1986). The noise and confusion of open classrooms caused teachers to adapt the educational environments into situational arrangements and instructional settings that worked best for them under the circumstances. Temporary alterations involved the haphazard construction of rapidly built interior partitions (Martz, 1992). Soon entire wings of schools, once large undivided instructional open spaces, contained remnant open areas interspersed with cluttered areas, partial partitions, low and high blank walls, narrow corridors and passages, and other nooks and crannies (Martz, 1992).

As interest in open classrooms peaked in the early 1970s, many states and school districts designed and constructed open-space school buildings with multiple large open-spaced areas and without permanent walls or rooms (Kreamer, 1972; Schubert, 1986). Colleges of education also developed open-space schools and open classrooms in their learning research centers to train future teachers how best to use the approach (Kreamer, 1972). By the late 1970s, however, interest in open classrooms waned and the open-education movement had, for the most part, come to an end, except for a few isolated holdouts that extended their own experiments with open classrooms into the early 1980s.

Practice. The common image of open education is a bunch of students milling about in a large open space (Sealey, 1976). However, the conception of schools without any structure and students without any direction is largely a misconception. As a result of such false premises and perceptions, there remain many issues and questions regarding the practice of open education. Table 2 summarizes some of the more important of these issues and questions related to open-education programs. Activities in open classrooms are typically more spontaneous and less formal. And, in many cases, students are not taught through a pre-designed curriculum but through their own interests as stimulated by their surroundings (Karlin, 1980). In open classrooms, teachers and students need not adhere to an established curriculum and to sequential learning. A great variety of learning materials and educational resources are required in open classrooms to maintain student interests at high levels (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

In open classrooms, direct whole-class instruction is little utilized, and most learning occurs through incidental small-group and individual teaching (Karlin, 1980; Schwartz, 1974). Incidental instruction oftentimes becomes an outgrowth of what students are engaged in at the time (Karlin, 1980). The task of the educator in an open classroom is to set up the learning environment such that students can tap into their own personal resources (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Teachers may not choose to intervene in students' activities (Gage & Berliner, 1988). To effectively operate in open classrooms, teachers need to be lenient if not permissive, flexible, nondirective, and relatively unperturbed by the noise and disorder that typically characterizes these environments (Webb et al., 1992). In open classrooms, teachers are not viewed as authority figures but as promoters, guides, and mediators who facilitate the activities of students. They do not strictly monitor, supervise, criticize, or evaluate the activities of students but seek only to enable them to fulfill their own personal goals (Webb et al., 1992).

Students in open classrooms engage in various activities without a planned sequence either individually or in groups (Karlin, 1980; Packard, 1973). The areas of learning and the time committed to a given task can vary for each student. Students are primarily responsible for the type of work they are involved in and the amount of time spent doing it (Gage & Berliner, 1988). In an activity-oriented curriculum, students learn by actively moving about the class and doing (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Based on their own initiative and accord, they move freely from one small group to another and from one activity center to another (Karlin, 1980). Students even have the freedom to move about the open school and visit other classes (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Different school organizational arrangements contain certain elements of open education but not others. Some classrooms, for example, provide an abundance of materials but offer little or no supervision or follow-through to ensure that learning occurs. In other open classrooms, students are assigned to learning centers and are given task cards with prescribed assignments (Linder & Purdorn, 1976).

The differences among open classrooms of the open-education era related to both the degree of implementation and to the areas in which "openness" was implemented (Marshall, 1981). Linder and Purdorn (1976) describe four aspects of openness—openness of assignment, management, process, and product—and they advocated planning activities for open classrooms at the level of openness that was most appropriate for the situation, task, and/or students.

In many instances, teachers were put into open classrooms with little or no prior knowledge or preparation of how to effectively operate under or utilize this instructional model (Schubert, 1986). They were asked to team teach with colleagues in large open-spaced areas without walls rather than in their traditional classroom arrangement. Teachers of the era also sometimes refused to use certain practices and methods (e.g., direct teaching experiences, specific assignments, and total class instruction) in open classrooms because they believed they violated basic premises of open education (Linder & Purdorn, 1976). Teachers ultimately determined, many times after the fact, that extensive preparation and planning were required when transitioning from traditional classrooms to open classrooms (Berchuck & Tauss, 1973).

Some educators (e.g., Walberg & Thomas, 1972) have stated that open education grew out of practical experience rather than philosophical or scientific foundations. Other educators have claimed that the practice of John Dewey, as described in his Schools for Tomorrow (1915), including the detailed descriptions and examples of his own school and his strong interest in child development, were clear inspirations for open education (Hein, 1975). If there was a philosophical foundation behind the open classroom, and most educators seem to believe there was, then it was one that advocated that a curriculum not be formally planned or prepared in advance, believing that it would stifle the development and learning of students if it was pre-planned or prepared (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Conklin (1975), however, argued that advocates of open education misunderstood the role of personal responsibility in learning and that, although knowledge is always personal, students need systematic help in acquiring it. Teachers can and should exercise their own responsibilities as taskmasters without concerns about leading students to become irresponsible (Conklin, 1975). Although freedom with self-responsibility is an accepted norm in open classrooms, complete permissiveness and lack of self-discipline are not (Karlin, 1980). The best informal practice may be learner-centered, and the starting point of all good informal teaching is oftentimes the student's experience, but active teaching versus passive teaching is essential in open classrooms (Featherstone, 1971).

Viewpoints

Advantages. An open-classroom approach to teaching in the primary and elementary grades permits structured flexibility and offers teachers increased opportunities to work directly with students (Duke, 1973; Karlin, 1980; White, 1974). Perhaps the predominant characteristics of open classrooms are their flexibility, informal atmosphere, and an emphasis on creativity and individuality (Sun, 1973; Karlin, 1980). The free-choice aspect of open classrooms provides the environment for learning experiences that are in harmony with students' natural growth (Duke, 1973). Open classrooms support increased interaction and encourage free communication among students. Students exercise and enjoy the freedom to move about unrestrained within a non-punitive and democratic community (Webb et al., 1992).

Open classrooms are active learning environments, and most students enjoy learning in open classrooms, which tap students' creative energies (Dillon & Franks, 1973). Open education de-emphasizes structure, respects personal differences, and provides for individual learning styles (Miller, 1976). They gear the curriculum to the needs, interests, and abilities of each student (Kepler & Randall, 1977), and students participate in activities based on those three personal attributes (Karlin, 1980). The teamwork and the non-graded plan of organization, typically within a two- or three-grade sequence, are efficient and efficacious in students' learning (Sloan, 1974).

Students in open classrooms generally study subjects and fields that interest them. They are exhorted to participate in exploratory-type learning activities and to discover things on their own accord (Ozmon & Craver, 1990; Schubert, 1986). Open-education classrooms typically invite participatory decision-making and enable students to develop decision-making, planning, and independent problem-solving skills as a result of self-paced learning (Nault, 1972; Sloan, 1974; Webb et al., 1992). Open classrooms produced learners who were independent and self-confident (Dillon & Franks, 1973; Karlin, 1980).

Open education reportedly engenders in student spontaneity, a sense of self, joy in learning, and pleasure in creating (Sobel & Tejirian, 1973). Sullivan (1974) found that students in open classrooms were superior to students who received traditional education in measures such as creative thinking, attitudes toward self and school, self-confidence, and independence in performing tasks. Play is encouraged by providing adequate free time during the school day and abundant educational tools and materials with which to experiment (Duke, 1973). Students learn through playing, and play was not, as some believed, wasted time (Duke, 1973).

Open-education classes do not follow a rigid schedule or timetable (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Students are free to create their own schedule and select the classes that they wish to attend (Dillon & Franks, 1973). Students learn at their own rate, speed, and level (Duke, 1973). When open classrooms were organized by committed and adequately prepared teachers, they had much to offer students (Rothenberg, 1989). And, when the informal methods used were successful, open education could be most rewarding for teachers and students (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Disadvantages. Open education was highly controversial, with as many arguments against the plan as arguments to support it (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Common criticisms regarding open-education systems were the associated costs, the need for special teachers, and negative public opinion (Hunt & Yarusso, 1979).

Open-education programs place greater demands on teachers than do traditional methods of instruction (Gage & Berliner, 1988). Some teachers of the open-education era were ill-prepared to provide the type of instruction dictated by the informal settings and could not adjust to open-classroom environments (Karlin, 1980). In schools without internal walls, there were many classes taught by teachers in one large open space, and different groups of students interfered with other groups (Rothwell, 1973). Teaching in large open spaces proved to be a barrier to providing a quality education to students. The method did not work well if teachers could not work well together themselves. Open-classroom teachers were also typically more dependent on their own resources (Karlin, 1980).

It has been argued that elementary-age students have not identified and focused on personal interests with sufficient clarity to direct their own needed educational development (Ozmon & Craver, 1990). It has been shown that students do not always know what they need or what is best for them (Ozmon & Craver, 1990). Some students, who need more direction and structure, may be unable to function properly and hence do less well in the informal learning environments of open classrooms (Karlin, 1980; Schwartz, 1974). There is little monitoring, management, feedback, or remediation available to students (Packard, 1973). Open-classroom teachers' attitudes have also been found to cause inner conflict and anxiety in some students (Schwartz, 1974).

The open-education movement encouraged students to study exciting, but not necessarily essential, subjects (Ozmon & Craver, 1990). As a result, some subjects, considered less important, received less attention in open classrooms than they did in traditional classrooms (Karlin, 1980). According to Friedlander (1975), students in open classrooms have not done as well in generally accepted measures of progress and performance as students in traditional classrooms. For the average student, academic achievement is lowered somewhat under the open-education model (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Research & Conclusions. Past research syntheses on the effectiveness of open education have failed to reach clear-cut findings because of discrepancies between the classification of open classrooms and the actual implementation of open education in those classrooms (Marshall, 1981). Some research studies have shown greater levels of underachievement and anxiety for open-school students (Friedlander, 1975). Other research indicates that open-classroom teaching methods did not result in a loss of academic proficiency in usual school subjects and that open education had a positive effect on students' achievement and attitudes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Horwitz, 1979).

Many of the outcomes claimed by research studies for open education are on difficult-to-measure variables such as psychological effects and affective dimensions of students' development. Open-education classrooms and teaching methods are credited with increasing or improving students' creativity, responsibility, independence/autonomy, motivation, self-concept, social participation, initiative, cooperation, altruism, ability to work without distraction, attitude toward school, and learning and skill in dealing with problems, among others. Compared to students from traditional school classrooms, students educated in open classrooms, not too surprisingly, were also found to be less conforming (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Henderson & Hennig, 1979; Horwitz, 1979; Rothenberg, 1989).

Open education has been identified by at least some educational researchers as a failed innovation that has research to support it (Marzano et al., 2005). The many unanticipated alterations and changes in how schools were run—for example, scheduling protocols, the failure to recognize the order of changes involved, and the use of inappropriate leadership behaviors—ultimately led to the downfall of the innovation (Marzano et al., 2005). Misiti and Lesniak (1980) cited lack of training and know-how of teachers in implementing open-education programs, the lack of workshops related to open-education philosophies and techniques, and teachers' perceptions concerning the negative reactions of parents toward open-education programs as factors responsible for the failure of some programs in the U.S.

Some educational researchers have stated without caveat or reservation that the open-education movement failed (Palardy, 1986). In fact, many cite the same forces that led to the demise of progressive education as being responsible for the problems faced by open education (Gage & Berliner, 1988). One of the reasons for the failure, if indeed the open classroom did fail, is that activities, as the basis of an open-classroom activity curriculum, became ends in themselves (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988).

The perceived failure of open education has also been blamed for the fact that many high school graduates and adults who were exposed to open education turned out to be functionally illiterate and ill-prepared for the real world in which they lived (Ozmon & Craver, 1990). Til, Brownson, and Hamm (1976) have argued that the open-education movement in the U.S. spawned a full-blown societal sickness with the prevailing symptoms of "permissiveness," "soft-headed relativism," and "misguided individualism."

Although praiseworthy in many respects, the practical manifestations of open education did not match its inspirational vision, and various research studies questioned the desirability and advisability of extending it to more students, and ultimately proposed that both its philosophy and practice be reexamined (Karlin, 1980). Rothenberg (1989) is one researcher who advocated reexamining the philosophy that underlies the open classroom, and he advised recreating it more carefully than in the past. Friedlander (1975) proposed that the negative findings regarding the open-education environment be interpreted within the context of the critical values and the types of outcomes that educators consider as priorities and desire to cultivate in students. In other words, educators must ultimately choose whether students' affective and attitudinal development can and should take precedence over their cognitive and intellectual development, or they must determine conclusively that neither must suffer with an open education.

A multigroup study in 2016, deemed a reexamination of the meaning of open in educational practice, as well as the need for additional preparation and planning by teachers, necessary to make open classrooms successful (Kimmons, 2016). Other studies advocated that a mixture of the open-classroom concept and a more traditional classroom environment would achieve the desired results while avoiding the disadvantages of open classrooms proved in the 1970s. In the 2020s, despite the lack of success of open classrooms in the 1980s, some educators aimed to bring the concept back, perhaps prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The trend was catching particular popularity in Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, and East Asia. Fielding Nair International took on the open classroom movement, opening school spaces with flexible classrooms in forty-seven countries (Kirk, 2017). Similarly, Sandy Hooda founded Vega Schools, an open classroom style school, in India. Critics note that the noise that was problematic for students in open classrooms in the 1980s would certainly exist in open classrooms in the 2020s, but some educators have faith that, after the shock of change subsides, this style of school will become a permanent option (Hooda, 2022).

Terms & Concepts

Activity Centers: Also called learning, teacher, or enrichment centers; learning stations set up within an open classroom in which students move freely from one to another.

Activity-Oriented Curriculum: Also called activity-based curriculum or simply an activity curriculum; educational experiences that are planned and determined largely by student interest and that emphasize self-expression, spontaneity, and creativity.

Existentialism: A philosophy and theory of education that focuses on its personal and subjective dimensions and advocates free choice and self-responsibility for students.

Experiential Learning: Learning that is focused on the process of inquiry and students' experience with the world and how things work; an approach based on the philosophy and theory of experimentalism.

Incidental Instruction: One-on-one or small-group teaching that is an outgrowth of what students are engaged in at the time.

Individualized Instruction: An educational approach in which teachers work with students on a one-on-one basis and structure learning activities for each student.

Integrated-Day Plans: Another name for open-education programs that emphasize the interdisciplinary integration of various subject areas.

Open Classrooms: Also called open-space classrooms; educational settings and arrangements based on an architectural design used in elementary schools during the 1960s and 1970s that consisted of large open instructional spaces or areas not divided into traditional walled classrooms; highly individualized and learner-centered curriculum designs focused on students' self-directed learning.

Open Education: Also called informal education; a set of ideas, methods, and loosely defined practices that characterize a highly individualized approach to early (primary and elementary) education.

Open-Plan Schools: Strictly speaking, this term refers to the school buildings without internal walls and rooms that were constructed based on decisions and dictates of architects and planners and that prescribed organizational arrangements that did not necessarily translate into ideal educational environments for students or teachers; also called open-space schools.

Open Schools: Primary and elementary educational institutions, associated buildings, grounds, and other physical structures that emphasize the needs, interests, motivation, and involvement of individual students in the design of their own instruction.

Progressivism: A philosophy and theory of education based on "learning by doing" and that advocates that students learn best by pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own needs.

Self-Directed Learning: Educational experience gained based on students' own motivated involvement in activities, their individual interests, and their personal understandings of the world around them.

Bibliography

Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaptation to open learning spaces. Issues in Educational Research, 23(3), 315–330. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92605392&site=ehost-live

Berchuck, I., & Tauss, V. (1973). The opening classroom: Guiding the transition. Elementary School Journal, 74(2), 78–83. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21693119&site=ehost-live

Conklin, K. R. (1975). A defense of the teacher as taskmaster (choreographer of student learning). Science Education, 59(1), 107–111. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19191457&site=ehost-live

Deimann, M., & Farrow, R. (2013). Rethinking OER and their use: Open education as bildung. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(3), 344–360. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89237265&site=ehost-live

Dillon, S. V., & Franks, D. D. (1973). Education for competence. Elementary School Journal, 74(2), 68–77. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18634737&site=ehost-live

Duke, D. L. (1973). The selling of the open school. Education Digest, 39(2), 18–21. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18619649&site=ehost-live

English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 127–150. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90663292&site=ehost-live

Featherstone, J. (1971). Tempering a fad. Education Digest, 37(4), 9–12. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18708716&site=ehost-live

Friedlander, B. Z. (1975). Some remarks on 'open education.' American Educational Research Journal, 12(4), 465–468. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18699349&site=ehost-live

Frisby, B. N., Weber, K., & Beckner, B. N. (2014). Requiring participation: An instructor strategy to influence student interest and learning. Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 308–322. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from EBSCO online database eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=96652821

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Goldman, R. M., Wade, S., & Zegar, D. (1974). Students without harness: The 'SUM' experiment in self-paced learning. Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 197–210. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19170324&site=ehost-live

Grannis, J. C. (1973). Informal education and its social context. Teachers College Record, 74(4), 547–552. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19759199&site=ehost-live

Hare, W. (1983). Open-mindedness in elementary school. Education Digest, 48(9), 28– Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18707842&site=ehost-live

Hein, G. E. (1975). Humanistic and open education: Comparison and contrast. Journal of Education, 157(3), 27–38. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5655930&site=ehost-live

Henderson, R. W., & Hennig, H. (1979). Relationships among cooperation-competition and locus of control in social and academic situations among children in traditional and open classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 121–131. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22051774&site=ehost-live

Hodges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

Hooda, S. (2022, March 17). How open classrooms are transforming the way students learn. Higher Education. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www.highereducationdigest.com/how-open-classrooms-are-transforming-the-way-students-learn

Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the 'open classroom.' Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 71–86. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18806244&site=ehost-live

Hunt, T. C., & Yarusso, L. C. (1979). Open education: Can it survive its critics? PJE: Peabody Journal of Education, 56(4), 294–300. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7592616&site=ehost-live

Karlin, R. (1980). Teaching elementary reading: Principles and strategies. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Kepler, K., & Randall, J. W. (1977). Individualization: Subversion of elementary schooling. Education Digest, 43(2), 17–20. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18666361&site=ehost-live

Khatib, M., Sarem, S., & Hamidi, H. (2013). Humanistic education: Concerns, implications and applications. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(1), 45–51. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90356245

Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118(9). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117765984&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kirk, M. (2017, April 27). Who thought ‘open classrooms’ were a good idea? Bloomberg. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-27/the-debate-around-open-classroom-design

Kreamer, R. (1972). Schools open up. Education Digest, 38(2), 25–27. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18931148&site=ehost-live

Linder, R., & Purdorn, D. (1976). Four dimensions of openness in classroom activities. Education Digest, 41(7), 52. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18929863&site=ehost-live

Mai, R. P. (1978). Open education: From ideology to orthodoxy. PJE: Peabody Journal of Education, 55(3), 231–237. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7588188&site=ehost-live

Marshall, H. H. (1981). Open classrooms: Has the term outlived its usefulness? Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 181–192. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18848013&site=ehost-live

Martz, L. (1992). Making schools better: How parents and teachers across the country are taking action—and how you can too. Times Books.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.

Miller, W. C. (1976). Public education and personal liberty. Education Digest, 42(3), Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18659732&site=ehost-live

Misiti, F. L., Jr., & Lesniak, R. J. (1980). Factors influencing the initiation and the continuation of open education programs. Education, 101(2), 200–204. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4717464&site=ehost-live

Nault, R. (1972). Open education: A gradualist approach. Elementary School Journal, 73(2), 107–111. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18996445&site=ehost-live

Noddings, N., & Enright, D. C. (1984). The promise of open education. Education Digest, 49(7), 36–39. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18707889&site=ehost-live

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1988). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Allyn and Bacon.

Ozmon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (1990). Philosophical foundations of education. Merrill Publishing Company.

Packard, R. G. (1973). Do we have to do what we want today? Structure in an open classroom. Teachers College Record, 74(4), 553–557. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19759200&site=ehost-live

Palardy, J. M. (1986). The effective schools movement: What lies ahead. Education Digest, 51(6), 18–20. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18708017&site=ehost-live

Ravitch, D. (1978). A wasted decade for urban educators. Education Digest, 43(5), 2–4. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18683662&site=ehost-live

Reh, S., Rabenstein, K., & Fritzsche, B. (2011). Learning spaces without boundaries? Territories, power and how schools regulate learning. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(1), 83–98. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=57749408

Rothenberg, J. (1989). The open classroom reconsidered. Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 68–86. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21651669&site=ehost-live

Rothwell, J. (1973). Second thoughts on open education. Elementary School Journal, 74(3), 119–123. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18647116&site=ehost-live

Salz, A. E. (1974). The truly open classroom. Education Digest, 39(9), 9–12. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18621379&site=ehost-live

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Schwartz, R. L. (1974). The open classroom: Growth crisis for the teacher. Elementary School Journal, 74(6), 326–335. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21823138&site=ehost-live

Sealey, L. (1976). Open education: Fact or fiction? Teachers College Record, 77(4), 615–630. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13001051&site=ehost-live

Sloan, F. A. (1974). Open education American style. PJE: Peabody Journal of Education, 51(2), 140–146. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7592265&site=ehost-live

Sobel, H. W., & Tejirian, E. (1973). The case for open education. Teachers College Record, 74(4), 559–565. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19759201&site=ehost-live

Sullivan, J. (1974). Open -- traditional: What's the difference? Elementary School Journal, 74(8), 493–500. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21651533&site=ehost-live

Sun, H. C. (1973). A critical look at the open classroom. Education Digest, 38(7), 32. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18619576&site=ehost-live

Til, W. V., Brownson, W. E., & Hamm, R. L. (1976). Back to basics with a difference. Education Digest, 41(5), 2–5. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18696304&site=ehost-live

Walberg, H. J., & Thomas, S. C. (1972). Open education: An operational definition and validation in Great Britain and United States. American Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 197–208. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18826576&site=ehost-live

Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (1992). Foundations of American education. Merrill/Macmillan Publishing Company.

White, E. J. (1974). To start an open classroom, proceed with caution. Elementary School Journal, 74(6), 321–325. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21823137&site=ehost-live

Yarger, S. Y., & Yarger, G. P. (1978). And so we asked ourselves-about teacher centers. Theory into Practice, 17(3), 248–257. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5203428&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Barth, R. S. (1977). Teaching styles and pupil progress: Do open classrooms work?: A book review. Journal of Education, 159(1), 68–72. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6561350&site=ehost-live

Dunn, M. A. (2000). Staying the course of open education. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 20–24. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3162316&site=ehost-live

Easthope, G. (2012). Community, hierarchy and open education. Routledge. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from EBSCO online database eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=459818&site=ehost-live

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Open accountability for the '90s: Between pillars. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 38–42. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8526991&site=ehost-live

Hein, G. E. (1975). Humanistic and open education: Comparison and contrast. Journal of Education, 157(3), 27–38. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5655930&site=ehost-live

LaFee, S. (2013). Flipped learning. Education Digest, 79(3), 13–18. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91748058&site=ehost-live

Misiti, F. L., Jr., & Lesniak, R. J. (1980). Factors influencing the initiation and the continuation of open education programs. Education, 101(2), 200–204. Retrieved May 18, 2007, From EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4717464&site=ehost-live

Mocofan, M., & Ciuclea, C. (2018). Need of open education resources in the students opinion. eLearning & Software for Education, 4. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=129436915&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Saeverot, H. (2013). Indirect pedagogy: Some lessons in existential education. SensePublishers. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from EBSCO online database eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=639510&site=ehost-live

Sealey, L. (1976). Open education: Fact or fiction? Teachers College Record, 77(4), 615–630. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13001051&site=ehost-live

Yarger, S. Y., & Yarger, G. P. (1978). And so we asked ourselves-about teacher centers. Theory into Practice, 17(3), 248–257. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5203428&site=ehost-live