In this chapter, the five core components of the CC model are considered as they apply in particular to the domains of Fundamentals, Instructions, and Teachings. There is a distinct observable trend stretching from Fundamentals to Instructions and on to Teachings. In some respects the differences in the nature of each of the three domains of the FIT model demand a customized implementation of the core components. The approach to decide how each core component will be employed is determined by the culminating objective of each domain.

The Essence of the Three Domains of the FIT model

            Fundamentals aim toward automaticity, which in itself implies non-reflection. This is achieved by relational comprehension and internalization in the form of memorization, which is expressed as verbal recall or physical recall in the form of routines, like the demonstration of conditioned patterns of behavior.

            Instructions are objective centered, and the aim is toward esthetics, which aspires to maximize the values of form and function. The essential quality of reflection is expressed in critical analysis and abilities and skills to meet the challenge.

            Teachings are human centered and the aim is toward sainthood. This entails a profound commitment to humanity from the perspective of charity and the sanctity of life, with a constancy in all actions, reflecting an understanding and an unwavering commitment and appreciation of morals and values. Although Teachings are aimed at the person, their primary values are directed at the community. A person committed to Teachings will demonstrate moral values pertaining to justice and charity, expressed to all of humanity.

Ability to Master

            As a precursor to the treatment of each core component within each of the three domains of education, two trends with an impact on all three domains will be considered. The first trend relates to the required length of time required for time-on-task to achieve mastery of the respective objectives within each of the domains. Relatively speaking, there is an exponential increase in the time that it takes to master a fact (Fundamentals), versus a skill (Instructions), versus the acquisition of a moral value (Teachings).

            Facts are mastered quickly, as indicated by proof of mastery. Within the context of Fundamentals, the relational understanding and proof of mastery is usually a straightforward matter.

            For instructional objectives (critical analysis and skills), the time factor increases significantly in achieving mastery. Skills subsume a collection of Fundamentals, and the demonstration of mastery usually incorporates the mastery of many fundamental recall entities — harmonized into, and supportive of, a more dynamic and reflective ability to critically analyze and to employ appropriate skills to meet the challenge.

            Teachings consist of both Fundamentals and Instructions as constituent parts, but there is a dynamic beyond the knowing-the-facts of Fundamentals and the able-to-do-ness of Instructions. Teachings require more than facts to be mastered, a sound understanding, and reflective knowledge. This personal conviction and commitment to humanity require experience and reflection to refine judgment; yet all of that could be in place and still leave you with a morally bankrupt Machiavellian rogue. Aspiring toward sainthood requires all of the above, but the active ingredient that distinguishes a saint from an imposter is a personal commitment to humanity, which is seated in the beauty of altruism and charity and mastery often takes a lifetime to achieve. Teachings require an iterative process, with commitment and reflection leading to a deeper understanding and increased personal mastery, and the ability to approach sainthood. Mastery of Teachings cannot be demonstrated through elicited behavior like with Fundamentals and Instructions. The mastery of Teachings can only be ascertained through evidence from life itself, rather than from proof gained from elicited behavior in contrived environments.

Objectives within Each Domain

            The second trend to consider is the relative number of objectives within each domain. In an analogous sense it would be fair to say there will always be more bricks than there are buildings, and there will always be more buildings than there are towns. This analogy maps to the relationship of possible objectives to achieve within the domains of Fundamentals, Instructions and Teachings.

            Fundamentals are plentiful. From the vantage point of Instructions, a required set of Fundamentals merges into collective units to serve the needs of the instructional objectives.

            Then, from the vantage point of Teachings, instructional objectives and subsequently Fundamentals commingle and are coupled to serve the needs of Teachings. There seems to be a converging trend from the vantage point of Teachings — from Instructions and Fundamentals toward Teachings, and then in turn from the vantage point of Instructions there is the same converging trend from Fundamentals.

            These two trends expose behavioral tendencies within each of the three domains. Now each of the five core components will be revisited, specifically addressing the separate needs of each of the three domains of education.

Core Component One: Community

            In the context of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, two virtually identical communities have previously been identified — the Personal Support Community and the Learning Community. These two communities will be considered for each of the three domains in education.

Community for Fundamentals

            The acquisition of Fundamentals is very diverse, ranging not only across the spectrum of possible environments of Instructions and Teachings, but within the domain of Fundamentals are learning events that could be self-serving with no implied extension toward the other two domains. The following list provides a few examples of learning at the fundamental level without an implied extension to Instructions or Teachings: 

                      an Anglophile memorizing the genealogy of the House of Windsor

                      a sports fanatic memorizing the names and statistics of a popular team

                      a geography amateur memorizing the capitals of every country

                      the history expert learning dates and facts about a particular historical period

            Such a list could be extensive. There is an innate drive in the human psyche to explore, to know, to enjoy, and to orient or contextualize ourselves as part of a family, a neighborhood, a community, a citizen of a country, a member of a religious or social community, and a citizen of the world. Internalizing information at the fundamental level provides satisfaction.

            The motivation for wanting to explore is numerous, ranging from curiosity to a deep-seated need to understand our world, to strengthen our sense of belonging and forming an identity — serving an intuitive need to learn and to be entertained. Acquiring Fundamentals can clearly be categorized as information that translates into expanded knowledge. It is often done without compulsion, because it is enjoyable, or it is perceived as something that will improve the mind or one’s opportunities in the future (Smith, 1998).

            The crucial question is then, “How are Fundamentals acquired?” Often the only requirement is the existence of the threadbare concept of a community, namely a sender and a receiver. A sports fanatic only needs the stats and facts about a given team, and the rest will happen without any help or intervention. The same applies to any of the scenarios listed above if there is strong personal interest to memorize these facts.

            Should the individual be compelled to memorize given information, the Learning Community would then be expanded beyond the minimal roles of content provider and learner. It might take a taskmaster, and cohorts to aid in the process. Typically Fundamentals require the simplest of a community to accomplish the objectives. The role of the Personal Support Community will be detailed under the domain of Teachings.

Community for Instructions

            It would be fair to include, as a subset of the community needs of Instructions, the description above under the heading of Fundamentals. The sense of community, needed to address Fundamentals, would also be applicable as a subset of the community centered on Instructions. In the community of Fundamentals there is the essential issue of what (pertaining to the collection of information) — focused on what they know. In the community of Instructions there is the additional issue of how to and why (relating to Instructions) — focused on what they can do. A group of history amateurs, with an interest in the history of South Africa for example, would be a community of Fundamentals. A community of model railroading amateurs, would be a community of Instructions. Here it is more than the know that matters. It is the ability to build and operate model trains that is important. In the computer world, any users group would qualify as a community of Instructions, since there is the focus on skills and thinking strategies to meet the challenge at hand. The disseminator’s role is expanded beyond that of providing facts and explaining the relational association among these facts. The competence to reflect appropriately, and to skillfully do, is at the heart of the focus of Instructions.

            The Learning Community in an instructional environment provides a context in which this focus can be met for the learner, often in a dynamic environment of changing variables. This requires from those who know (like the disseminator, the teacher, the coach, the mentor, the consultant, and so forth) to provide feedback, to judge the thinking and doing of the learner, and to question, to correct, to suggest, and to encourage.

            The emerging role of fellow learners in the context of Instructions would be to collaborate, to reflect within the context of team dynamics and in the doing, and to provide opportunities for each individual to juxtapose personal progression against that of others in the group. Athletics would provide a clear example. If we were all neophytes in gymnastics and training together, it would be very helpful to watch others perform. This would provide valuable example–nonexample input, as well as being a measurement for every individual of what the perceived current norm is. This input could motivate the individual to either work harder, because of a lack of performance, or it could be an encouragement to those who are exceeding the norm at any instance. (Admittedly, those performing far outside the norm might be better served in a particular environment more in keeping with their capabilities.)

            Feedback within this community ca be directed at any active member of this community, including the content provider and the learners. The role of the Personal Support Community will be detailed under the domain of Teachings.

Community for Teachings

            Once more the community roles of the previous two domains are folded into the realm of the domain of Teachings. Expanded issues related to Teachings include the what (pertaining to Fundamentals) and the how to (pertaining to Instructions). In addition to that, it includes a profound human-centered sense of why (from the vantage point of benefits to humanity), resting on the pillars of charity and justice.

            The development of atomic energy provides a good opportunity to explain this concept. The roles of Fundamentals and Instructions would concern the actual development of the know-how to build the devices that use nuclear reactions with technical precision. Any moral judgment about if, why, and when to use nuclear power would not be addressed by Fundamentals or Instructions. It is the domain of Teachings that would specifically address such issues. It is not suggested that in every instance the outcome from those committed to Teachings would be the same. The field is complex. Our ability is limited to comprehend which perspectives matter; and then, of those that do seem to matter, it is a challenge to determine what the relative value of each of these perspectives should be. Life itself provides ample evidence that two or more well-meant, but opposing groups, do not always end up seeing issues in the same light. It is often advisable to be judicious, which might include deferring judgment and investigating alternative perspectives.

            Instructions and Teachings share some key activities. One such activity would be the development of analytical skills, and in both instances the Learning Communities would be involved in the development of such skills. Analytical skills are skills of the mind. Instructions address physical skills as well. Teachings compel the individual to physical action, but the ability to perform the action itself pertains to Instructions, whereas the reason, the justification, and purpose of the action in a given context are what the teaching is all about. The following would serve as an example: If someone shows integrity in whatever way, the physical actions would be tied to physical dexterity and skills, and observable actions. This is the context of the community of Instructions. The context of the action would provide evidence of the individual’s adherence to, or defiance of, a moral code of conduct, which ties directly to the mind, the thoughts and decisions of the actor. This is the context of the community of Teachings.

            The role then of then of the Personal Support Community is different within a community for Teachings (a Gemeinschaft) and for a community for Instructions (a Gesellschaft). With Fundamentals and Instructions the support centers on the objectives of education and it is received from within the Learning Community. With Teachings, the role of the Personal Support Community is designed to provide human-centered support to the individual. For example, if you are not fed, or if you have not had enough sleep, or if you have had to endure mental abuse in your private life, it would override the ability to function as expected in these two domains.

            Within the context of Teachings, Gemeinschaft is the essential expression of both the Learning Community and the Personal Support Community. This distinctly contrasts with the learning of Instructions, where the Gesellschaft presents the essential community context for the learner. As Tönnies (1957) remarked, friendship is at the heart of the Gemeinschaft. These associations with human concern, love, and feelings pertain to the essence of the Personal Support Community rather than the Learning Community. The latter centers on optimizing interactions and actions within the learning event to meet the learning objectives.

            With Teachings it is by design that the disseminators are mostly the same people doing double duty as agents of both the Learning Community and the Personal Support Community. In one role they are actors within the Learning Community (when the emphasis rests on Fundamentals and Instructions). In the other role they act as teachers and exemplars within the individual’s Personal Support Community, and provide support for the individual’s personal well-being. To repeat the quote by Cooley (2002), the “Gesellschaft consists of a group of people who are capable of promising or delivering something (an activity or object).”

            The focal activity is the instruction of the Fundamentals of Teachings, and within the domain of Instructions, the objective is to develop relevant reflective skills. Once the Fundamentals have been addressed and the instructional objectives have been met, the task of the Learning Community folds into the role of the Personal Support Community, or in the light of the work by Tönnies, from the outset the learner is enveloped in the support of the Gemeinschaft, while Gesellschaft-like activities are being conducted to address the instructional needs within Teachings. Then, due to the nature of what is being learned, the Gemeinschaft becomes the vicarious schoolmaster. The word vicarious is used, because although an embrace of the teaching is directly desired, a great portion of the teaching is done indirectly. It is by the example, by means of the evidence from actions of the Gemeinschaft, that the learner experiences the Teachings and is enticed to take on an active role, to make the transformation from being a recipient of the blessings of the Gemeinschaft to a worthy and valued giver to and from the Gemeinschaft. The fundamental and instructional part of Teachings will focus on the characteristics of each of these two domains, but the final component of teaching is being, which reflects our character as we really are — a thing which cannot be imposed. It is a personal transformation of the heart and the mind that is essential to become a true teacher. No matter how steeped a learner might be in the values and morals that were taught, if this personal transformation does not take place, the learner will only superficially be a participant within the Gemeinschaft and might be selective with when and which Teachings to adhere to. In such an instance, the lack of commitment, despite the level of understanding, will rob the learner of the culminating experience — sainthood.

            Instructions center on what we do and how well we do it. With an objective in mind, the focus is on when and how well you can hit and kick and twist and turn or do whatever, to achieve the educational objective. Teachings center on why we do things — the purpose and context of our actions within a clear framework of values and morals. From this perspective you cannot honest, or compassion, or integrit. It is the context of our actions that reflect on our commitment to Teachings.

            Here are some specific examples. Let us consider the honesty–dishonesty issue. Someone enters a secure area of the bank after hours, uses sophisticated equipment to open the vault and removes money from the vault. Is this honest or not? Only the true context can determine that. It could be a thief , or it might be a bank employee, withdrawing money on behalf of a client with special privileges.

Core Component Two: Agenda

            Drawing from the basics of communication, intention is the broader equivalent to describe the core component of agenda. The neologistical term intentities tie together the clusters of information and designed events to serve the agenda. Often the question is not if the content has an agenda or not, but alternatives might be, ‘How many agendas are served by the content?’ or ‘Is all the content relevant to the agenda?’ Without harmony between the agenda and its content, the content becomes distracting, senseless, or misleading. A previously cited example of the patient with aphasia in Wernicke’s area of the brain comes to mind. It is the agenda that streamlines and demands cohesion of the intentities. The agenda makes it possible to measure the appropriateness of the content selection.

Agenda for Fundamentals

            The implications of the agenda in the context of Fundamentals are simplistic. It is to convey the appropriate information to establish an appropriate passive and active mastery of relevant facts, and to fully grasp the contextual associations between the facts. As an example, if I want to memorize the genealogy of the royalty of Sweden, the facts might be nodes on the genealogical tree, and the contextual associations might be the links between the nodes. What is of interest at this point is that the example above pertains to learning not intended to extend beyond Fundamentals.

            When the learning of Fundamentals is a subset of Instructions, the agenda would be expressed to center on the instructional objectives rather than the Fundamentals. Learning how to do math calculations for example. You need to be able to count. You might have to memorize the required types of manipulations and the sequence in which they follow.

            The same would be true of learning Fundamentals to serve Teachings — the agenda might be expressed to serve the largest collective whole and the particular Fundamentals would be an integral subset of an intentity serving the larger agenda.

Agenda for Instructions

            The implications of the agenda for Fundamentals are elemental, and the implications of the agenda for Instructions could range from simple to complex. An example of simple instructions would be like adding two numbers together or pushing a wheelbarrow. An example of Instructions that are intricate and complex, especially ill-defined domains, would be how to maintain double-digit growth at company XYZ for the next decade. With a plethora of variables to consider, and then to determine the relevancy or weightedness of each, and adding to that the unexpected happenings outside of your control, can make the implications of the agenda ambiguous.

Agenda for Teachings

            An agenda for Teachings, like with Instructions, seems to be simple and clear, yet it often gains greater significance as experience of years is added to the equation. An important difference between an agenda for Teachings and for Instructions is that success at the agenda for Instructions can be seen as an achievement or verified accomplishment. Indeed it might be an accomplishment as well to succeed in living up to a teaching in a challenging moment, but Teachings are never fully accomplished. Mastering the ability to ride a bicycle is an achievement related to an instructional objective. Once you have mastered to ride a bicycle, you have the competency. Your competency does not depend on the day of the week it is. Teachings however might be understood and followed, but the learner could always abandon the teaching and reverse the behavioral gains attributed to the teaching. This difference between Teachings and Instructions stand because Instructions are the mastery of specific actions, whereas Teachings are manifested as judgments, which are manifested through actions. The whole focus then with Teachings revolves around the understanding and commitment to judgment that is morally grounded. The same agenda might stand for all followers of a specific teaching, but it might be expressed with different degrees of understanding and commitment in the many contexts which call for it.

Core Component Three: Content

            With the community in place and the agenda established, the next core component is content. Whatever is conveyed or exchanged in communication is content. The criterion by which content is evaluated is the degree to which content matches the intentions of the agenda. The particular emphasis is the respective needs of each of the domains of education. The following example is given as a precursor to this discussion to conceptually separate the core components of Agenda and Content. Consider meeting a stranger as your companion on an intercontinental flight. You might exchange polite greetings and then if you two are able to establish an agenda in the form of a topic, usually based on mutual interest, your conversations for the rest of the flight would be meaningful. If you are not able to establish an agenda, there is essentially no content to share. You exchanges would be substance-poor.

            Another example might be youth in the inner city. A life with no substantive agenda is reflected by idleness, and that often leads to mischief; hence programs like midnight basketball and so forth to provide an agenda to help these youngsters shape their raison d’être in life.

            A comparison of the nature of content across the three domains reflects a trend from little to much. Fundamentals require the facts to memorize or the physical action to automate, and then the information to understand the fact or act in its context. Instructions add to that the need to develop skills, which is a reflective action that is well suited to the moment. This requires significantly more contextualization on the part of the disseminator. Teachings draw from both Fundamentals and Instructions, with the expanded need, not only to be able to do something, but to be committed to a moral value in many different circumstances. This requires the contribution of the disseminator to address both the understanding, which has to increasingly address the need for reflection of the learner, and commitment, which is not solely enhanced through an intellectual exchange. The disseminator has to be an example, and out of necessity the disseminator’s life will be open and accessible to the learner.

Content for Fundamentals

            If the content is focused on the objective, and it optimally facilitates the ability to memorize or internalize the facts or acts, it belongs to Fundamentals. It also has to facilitate the grasp of associations with other relevant facts to optimally exploit the affordances of content as a core component.

Content for Instructions

            The exchanges between disseminator and learner increase significantly compared to the needs of Fundamentals. The content could include immense diversity in communicative transactions to either provide information, or to elicit reflection, research and exploration and forcing the learner to seek diverse ways for accessing content from other providers. In keeping with the tenets of a core component, this is not a prescriptive approach as to what the content should contain. It has to meet the requirements of the agenda, which would include reflective abilities and skills to meet the challenge. It also has to communicate optimally, presenting information and thus avoiding an overload of information (either commonition or illumination). How the information will be structured will be central to the core component of presentment.

Content for Teachings

     At this stage it would be appropriate to return to the concept of verdigting. Consider the verdigting value of the underlined terms in the next two sentences:

            (1) I want to support ongoing improvement of the rigor and importance of all research conducted.

            (2) I want to pay the monthly fees for the new club in our college.

            In the first sentence each of the underlined terms has a high verdigting value. Many nuances could be attributed to each of these terms in the first sentence. In contrast, the marked terms in the second sentence have a very low verdigting value and it is much easier to reach consensus on what exactly is meant.

            The verdigting value of the implications of the agenda increases as one moves along the continuum from Fundamentals to Instructions to Teachings.

            Particularly within Teachings, it is a quest throughout life to discover the true verdigting value of a teaching. As a child, a concept is seen virtually in isolation. As one matures, the juggling of different values might create a moral dilemma, and require a more profound understanding of the values in question to be able to make an appropriate decision. The example from chapter one about the honesty of the diamond dealer is a point in case. As one acquires a truer sense for the verdigting value of many Teachings, the contexts could be complex and decisions in life could be vying for seemingly conflicting Teachings to be met in the same context. True understanding and insight, reflective skills, and a commitment to charity will be needed to determine the priority of each teaching.

Core Component Four: Presentment

            As explored in the previous chapter, presentment divides into two subcomponents — presentation and support. With the Learning Community in place and having an established agenda and its content to exchange, presentment considers both the objective of the agenda, and the needs of the humans involved.


            The objectives of the agenda’s activities are collected under the term presentation. Presentation has the following modes: (a) two share modes — tell and show; (b) one reciprocation mode, feedback; and (c) one mode of expectation — pressure. Pressure could include many varied activities to elicit from the learner activities and communication to satisfy the objectives of the agenda.


            The needs of the learner as an individual is addressed with this component of presentment and according to the analogy of growing a tree, it consists of nurturing and pruning.

Presentment for Fundamentals

            The sender or disseminator would engage in some form of tell and show (physical tell), and based on what is received from the learner, provide feedback to correct, confirm, or suggest appropriate actions from the learner. For Fundamentals these could be regurgitation, actions to demonstrate basic subskills (like a fire drill routine), and the demonstration of a comprehension of the associative relationships between actions or facts.

            It is not implied that the presentment of Fundamentals has to occur in isolation of the Instructions or Teachings. Fundamentals is included as an implicit component of an instructional or teaching event. The value of such events is that the Fundamentals are internalized in context, which could enhance learning and satisfy logic. The counter argument should be considered as well. If a lack of mastery of Fundamentals precludes the learning from effective participation in the instructional or teaching event, then a presentation and verification, centered on Fundamentals, might be a better choice.

            Presentment of Fundamentals gives pertinent emphasis to presentation as the primary activity of the sender. The support role is present in a non-emphasized capacity to address the needs of the learner.

Presentment for Instructions

            The description of presentment for Instructions is similar to that of Fundamentals, with the addition that the Instructions use the regurgitated ability, the ability with physical subskills, and the comprehension of associative relationships, gained from the domain of Fundamentals, to develop mental skills that include reflection and skills to address real-life challenges. There is an overarching consideration of how to balance the subcomponents of tell, show, feedback, and pressure. For example, how and when does the sender provide feedback? Pressure could also contain an invitation for performance from the learner, which would then often yield to formal verification.

            It is imperative for the educator or the educational theorist to be well acquainted with the four subcomponents of presentation, since it is important to yield to verification. The question for theorists and practitioners is to decide how and when to do so. It also implies that the default state of many educational experiences has to be challenged, where it is assumed that presentation and verification religiously follow each other in that order.

            As with Fundamentals, presentment of Instructions gives pertinent emphasis to presentation as the primary activity of the sender. The support role is present in a non-emphasized capacity to address the needs of the learner.

Presentment for Teachings

            The instructional part of Teachings is the objectified human-centered core component or moral value related to justice and charity. The event, designed to achieve the objectives of understanding such principles of justice and charity pertain to the domain of Fundamentals and Instructions. This might include case studies and an analysis of appropriate judgments in a given situation. This would include tell and show, and elicitations to demonstrate understanding, to which the disseminator could reciprocate with appropriate feedback. This instructional component addresses the process of contextualizing the learner with the teaching, and in the case of service learning, opportunities to do — to build reflective skills.

            With Teachings the objective is commitment, and that is set over the learner’s life. Here the presentment often aims at promoting commitment in a spontaneous manner within the Gemeinschaft. Often it is not done by what is said in an ‘instructional’ sense, but by being — as an exemplar to the learner.

            C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), was a prominent moral teacher of the twentieth century. In his book, Mere Christianity, he quoted Dr. Johnson with the following, “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed”. Lewis goes on to say, “The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old, simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see.” (Lewis, 1954, p. 64). This is an eloquent explanation of an important part of the role of presentment for Teachings.

            In the process of instilling Teachings, the notion of pressure, which is a subcomponent of presentation, is applicable to the development of understanding and development of commitment in the learner. As previously discussed in the introduction of the concept of pressure, it could be very gentle, like an invitation, or it could be strong, like a reprimand or an order. This part of presentment could be to create a vision of being, which would require the teaching to be embraced. For example, using your impression of a saint, if you were to embrace the concept of becoming a saint, would that not imply integrity, charity, virtue, and so forth?

Core Component Five: Verification

            As a bold statement it could be said that everything the learner does within the context of the agenda of one of the three domains of education is verification. Verification is subdivided into self-verification and formal verification.

Verification for Fundamentals

            Although the objective of this domain is to build automated, nonreflective skills, the question of how we become aware of these facts or skills are of academic interest. Some skills may start out as being nonreflective. Indirect learning and subconscious learning is one way in which Fundamentals might be acquired. Ritualistic instruction would be an example. Here you would experience (do or watch) the same ritual many times in your life without being compelled to reflect on the deeper meaning. In time the ability to anticipate any part of the ritual is automated, yet it might never have been practiced consciously. Another example would be if you were to listen to a song repetitively you would eventually be able to sing along without having consciously put forth an effort to learn the song. Yet, according to Fitts’ law (Fitts & Posner, 1967), the learner passes through an initial cognitive phase, in which the learner uses a conscious process to memorize and to develop understanding. The second phase is the associative phase, which is the application of knowledge to develop physical proficiency. The final phase is the autonomous phase in which the control over the new skill becomes automated.

            A child learning to count or to recite the ABCs first has to go through a reflective process in order to comprehend the associative relations between the facts and also to commit the facts to memory. With numbers, toddlers first memorize the sequence and it is amusing to watch them foul up. Once they catch on the associative relationship between the numbers, the generative properties take over and they are able to count beyond their ability to memorize. With letters on the other hand, children realize there is no generative property to the order of the alphabet. As you say the alphabet, you will never get to the point where you would say, “Wait, don’t tell me, let me figure out what comes next.”

            Self-verification then includes all the steps the learner takes, according to Fitts’ Law, to master the facts and to understand the associative relationship between the facts and finally to build an automated recall or physical ability. These activities and heuristics might come from the many how-to-be-a-good-learner books and articles that have been written.

            Formal verification would be the learner providing proof that the facts have been automated. This could include recall from memory or appropriate nonreflective physical responses.

Verification for Instructions

            There is the development of ownership that is an emerging reality as the learner progresses. An apprenticeship can take on many forms like fixing cars, weaving carpets, performing surgery, or flying an aircraft. You first do small tasks that are not mission critical. During this process, the apprentice is a minor participant and a major observer. This initial phase of learning is used to contextualize the newcomer to the full reality of what it is all about. The learner sees decisions being made, which skills are used in which contexts, and so forth.

            In foreign language learning, there is a significant difference between understanding and speaking. Developing the required understanding or contextualizing yourself to the foreign language environment can also be expressed as building an inner voice. This ability commences when you develop the ability to discern between a good and bad accent in the foreign tongue. You would eventually even be able to tell when someone makes a grammatical error or if they used a word out of context. Yet you might still not be able to speak. Speaking goes beyond the Fundamentals. Fundamentals would be to practice the sounds, to learn vocabulary and to do rote learning about verb inflections, like the amo, amas, amat, amamus, . . . in Latin. In the early stage of language learning, as a listener, there is a lot of conscious and subconscious self-verification that happens. This verification helps you to improve your receptive (hearing and reading) skills. These are passive skills, or maybe a better term would be mentally active skills. Yet, all this does not make you a speaker. There are some verification tasks that are directly tied to the doing. Like with bicycle riding, you can study it all you want, but the skill to put the peddling, steering, and balancing all together, and not to fall apart when you have to use the breaks, does not come vicariously. The only way to verify that you are able to do so would be to do it. As you become a speaker of a foreign language, the same rule applies. Even with a perfect understanding of the new language, you will remain a terrible speaker without deliberate experience talking. This physically active mode, the actual trying or doing has its own verification that cannot be achieved through thinking alone.

            Self-verification can be initiated and driven by the learner personally, but the disseminator, or any of the other members inside the Learning Community can also instigate it.

            Formal verification of Instructions is an important function of schools and universities. It is an assessment of the learner’s ability, to confirm that the learner has met the objectives of the agenda. This can be done through observation of the physically active skills. The formal verification is a whole field of study in its own right.

Verification for Teachings

       When it comes to the self-verification of the conceptualization of Teachings, the descriptions related to Fundamentals and Instructions are applicable. However, when it comes to the self-verification of commitment to Teachings, there is a profoundly different procedure in place. If the learner rejects the Teachings, and de facto decides to be a nonlearner, then self-verification would not happen. Since the individual has to personally embrace the teaching, force would often be counter productive. In a case where the individual has embraced the teaching, the ability to apply self-verification depends in large measure on two aspects. The first aspect is the level of understanding that the person has, and the second aspect is the measure of commitment that the individual has.

            If the person’s understanding is lacking, it will be easy to overestimate appropriate judgment during self-verification. If you think that your judgment is sound because you do not really know how to interpret the context or understand the principle, then your self-verification would be inaccurate. If your knowledge of the principles and your interpretation of the context were sound, then it would be possible to do an accurate self-verification.

            If the person has a good grasp of the context and the principles to decide upon, but lacks commitment, there would be a personal stumbling block to wanting to self-assess. In the most ideal situation, if a person has a sound understanding and there exists a high degree of commitment, the person’s heart would be teachable, open, and honest. This is the most accurate environment for self-assessment to take place. Then it would be possible to frankly face up to weaknesses in comprehension, or the understanding of circumstances, or inconsistencies in commitment to sound judgment. Then it would be possible to explore new approaches to bad habits, or to admit to self-defeating choices or weaknesses.

            The significant value of self-verification is twofold. Firstly it self-confirms the learner’s status in the ability to meeting the challenge. Secondly it forces the learner to reflect on how to bridge the gap between what actually is, and what is desirable.

            Formal assessment of Teachings is a judgment by the community or society at large on the behavior of an individual of a group. The behavior according to moral principles related to justice and charity are scrutinized.

            Notable examples of judgments in the form of condemnation of a group comes from the political arena. The Nazis during the Second World War would be an example, so would be the Stalinists in the former Soviet Union, the Hutu Militias in Rwanda, or the Apartheid government in South Africa.

            Notable examples of judgments in the form of condemnation of individuals would be terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, who killed hundreds by blowing up a public building. It would also include murderers and criminals of diverse stripes.

            Notable examples of judgments in the form of praise of groups would include work by charity organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the Peace Corps. Examples of judgments in the form of praise for individuals would received the Nobel Peace Prize like the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa. It would include the formal recognition that a school, a church, a city council, or a governor gives to any person or group for service to the community.


            This chapter argues that the CC model appropriately contextualizes the activities to be conducted within each domain of the FIT model, that the roles of each core component is not only essential for education, but that the role of each component is different within each domain of the FIT model. These two models join as a more expanded descriptive model of education, laying the groundwork to re-analyze prescriptive theories within the realm of education. This model also presents a new way of thinking about and a way of looking at education — this integrated model presents a new frame of reference for the development of new prescriptive theory of education.