Contracts versus the Commitment Process

Abstract

ABSTRACT Securing commitment to learning is a continuing problem for teachers. In lieu of some as yet poorly understood system of internal goading, contracting is a device to which teachers are tempted to turn in securing student commitment to individualized instruction. Teachers should recognize, however, that contracting, far from being an innovation, is a technique from the past of doubtful validity. The Dalton Plan of the 1920's appeared to utilize the contract successfully until equating learning with manual labor ultimately proved fallacious. Without the contract plan, the recent curriculum reform movement, equating learning with intellectual labor, again seems to have proved fallacious. The contemporary revival of the contract plan has stressed reform of the teacher role, either by demonstrating a potential link with technology to form an instructional system, or by aiding the student to achieve a transition to self‐direction. Inevitably, contracting in itself constitutes an extrinsic factor contributing little to human growth and development. However, the process of contracting, here termed the commitment process, is an intrinsic factor of great potential. The commitment process may have the effect of helping solve several contemporary educational problems, not the least of which are the personalization and humanization of instruction. Today's students are less in need of contracts than problem‐solving mechanisms. The commitment process, which may never terminate in a contract, appears to be just such a mechanism.