106 Chapter 2 When compared with the above-mentioned outcome of the metaethnographic comparison of 13 studies concerning WCE, Crowell and ReidMarr (2013) underlined the importance of an educational focus on intellectual, physical, emotional, social and (moral-)spiritual wellbeing. They also included the holistic environment, and they perceived art and play as important instruments for fostering emergent teaching. Holistic and wholistic In 2019, Sam Crowell was a member of the editorial committee that launched the International Handbook of Holistic Education, which featured contributions of 58 different authors from around the world (Miller et al., 2019). In the first, foundational part, John P. Miller (2019) referred the above-mentioned study by the American Institutes of Research concerning WCD pedagogies and models in 10 different countries in Europe and North America (p. 15), identifying overlaps and differences between what he called holistic and wholistic education. Holistic education mainly entails the application of the broad concept of 20th century holism to education, while wholistic education refers specifically to the early 21st century reactions to the NCLB policies in the United States and the reductionistic focus on academic achievement and testing, as fostered mainly by the ASCD. Miller identified John Dewey and Nel Noddings as scientists who can be connected to wholistic education but not particularly to holistic education (Miller, 2019, p. 14). With regard to Dewey, Miller (2019) argued that ‘his focus on problem solving and the scientific method place him within the pragmatic tradition’ (p. 14). Moreover, while Miller (2019) validated Noddings’ work on caring (1992) and happiness (2003), he did not situate her within the realm of real holistic approaches ‘because she mostly avoids including the spiritual’ (p. 14). Still, he described the work of Dewey and Noddings as ‘very important in that some educators cannot include spirituality in public education’ and stated that ‘their work provides a bridge for teachers who are more comfortable with a wholistic perspective’ (Miller, 2019, p. 14). Miller (2007) argued earlier that the spiritual dimension signified a crucial difference between the holistic and wholistic perspectives. The former includes the spiritual dimension, while wholistic education ‘focuses more on a biological and psychological holism’ (Miller, 2007, p. 14). In the introductory part of his contribution, Miller cited two early definitions from the first issue of the Holistic Education Review. The first came from Ron Miller (1988, p. 2, as cited in Miller, 2019):
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw