272

The issue of perception:

some educational
implications
Dr A Lewis
Department of Primary School
Teacher Education
Unisa

D ifferences in perception are central to both the practice and research in education. It is
thus necessary for educational practitioners to understand the reason for differences in
perception in order to practice and do authentic research. It is therefore the aim of this
article to touch on the complex nature of the perceptual process and influencing factors
as well as provide three examples of educational phenomena in order to highlight
differences in interpretation. In conclusion, a few practical guidelines will be provided in
order to understand different modes of thinking and behaviour.

1 INTRODUCTION

As perceptions are central to both the practice and research in

education (Johnson 1994:475), researchers, learners and practitioners of
education very often have problems understanding why a person
thought or behaved in a specific way (Lewis 1999:4±5). McGregor
(1993:17) gives a practical example to illustrate the case in point: When
fourteen-year-olds writing an experimental school exit test were asked
to trace the shortest distance between two towns, white children got
the answer ``right'' while black children got it ``wrong''. The reason
being that the black township of Crossroads (situated close to Cape
Town) is situated between the two towns in the example. Black
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 273

children perceived the township as dangerous and thus travelled

around the settlement while ``unpoliticized'' white children, to whom
the name Crossroads meant little, if anything at all, took the ``correct''
straight line. McGregor (1993:17) ascribes these differences to the
``... many things in South Africa (which) are twisted by politics and
totally different perceptions''.

In a country like South Africa, these different perceptions are very

often simply attributed to differences between black people who
represent an holistic, interdependent society and white people, who
maintain a Western, independent cultural style (cf Markus & Kitayama
1991:224±253). Although this cultural generalisation is scientifically
valid (cf Scherer & Walbott 1994:310±328; Scherer 1997:902±922; Choi
& Nisbett 1998:949±960), the reasons for differences in perception are
far more varied than that of a cultural explanation, a factor solely
expounded by Bergen (1992:6±8).

Individuals or groups experience stimuli from the outside world to

which they ascribe meaning. Although, in many instances these stimuli
are experienced similarly, they may often be interpreted differently
(Kearney 1984:41) due to a host of factors and may even lead to
misunderstandings in some instances. Why is this so? Is it a case of
naive realism or that people do not know how to take another's point
of view into consideration? These questions can initiate an endless
debate, but a first step to understanding others would be to understand
the perceptual process.

In the light of the above, it is the aim of this article to firstly touch on the complex
nature of the perceptual process and influencing factors, and secondly to propose
certain guidelines as to a better understanding of others.

2 DEFINITION AND ETYMOLOGICAL ROOTS OF THE

TERM ``PERCEPTION''
2.1 Definition

The study of human perception is a complex field (Cantril 1968:5;

Matlin & Foley 1992:2) with definitions and theories of the term being
highly interdisciplinary (McBurney & Collings 1984:1) and inconclu-
sive (Johnson 1994:476,492).
274

However, what has come to light from a study of literature is that it is

in the fields of Philosophy and Psychology that these definitions and
theories have their stronghold and are not without their theoretical
debates (Lewis 1999:30). In view of these observations a general
definition of the term ``perception'' will be provided and will be
viewed in this article as an understanding of the world constructed
from information obtained by means of the senses (Shaver in Johnson
1994:476).

2.2 Etymological foundations

Etymologically, the term ``perception'' is derived from the Old French

È
language term percepcõ on and literally referred to the collecting of rents
by feudal landlords (Barnhart 1988, sv ``perception''). Cutting
(1987:62) observes that the present definition of the term has
maintained a degree of this prior usage in that it refers to the collecting
of information about the world by means of the senses (cf Simpson &
Weiner 1989, sv ``perception''). In a similar vane, the Latin terms
w w w
perceptH o, percH pH o and perceptio} n em mean ``to take possession of or to
seize'', be it physically grasping something or mentally seizing
w
something with one's senses (Lewis & Short 1975, sv ``perceptG o'',
w w
``percG pG o''). The latter explanation refers to the focus of this article.

3 FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF, AND CONDITIONS

FOR PERCEPTION

The act of perceiving consists of certain conditions and fundamental

elements (Jordaan & Jordaan 1996:329±332). These conditions and
fundamental aspects transcend the scholarly debates surrounding the
perceptual process (Lewis 1999:34). As these debates will not be
discussed in this article due to their complex and lengthy nature,
suffice is to say that they have contributed to a better understanding of
the act of human perception (Shaver & Tarpy 1993:16±17).

3.1 Fundamental elements of perception

Fundamental to perception is that there is an experiencing person or

perceiver; secondly, that something is being perceived (either an
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 275

object, person, situation or relationship); thirdly, there is the context of

the situation in which objects, events or persons are perceived and
finally, there is the process nature of perception starting with the
experiencing of multiple stimuli by the senses and ending with the
formation of percepts. Although it may appear from the above-
mentioned to be a separated and slow process, cognisance must be
taken that the formation of percepts takes milliseconds to complete and
are not fragmented (Jordaan & Jordaan 1996:332).

3.2 Conditions for perception

Certain conditions have to be met before any act of perceiving can take
place. To Jordaan and Jordaan (1994:329±332) the first condition is that
there must be a sensory system that functions normally (cf Tibbetts
1969:1); secondly, that the sensory system be subjected to basic sensory
stimulation and thirdly, that the stimulation be in a constant state of
flux, both physiologically and psychologically.

4 THE PERCEPTUAL PROCESS AND INFLUENCING

FACTORS

In order to understand how humans give meaning to their world, one

has to understand the perceptual process as well as the various
influencing factors. With regard to the latter, Cantril (1968:5) sees any
perception as ``an awareness that emerges as a result of a most
complicated weighing process ... tak[ing] into account a whole host of
factors or cues''.

What follows is a conceptualisation of the perceptual process, a mere

understanding of the process, and not the conceptualisation Ð a
finality cast in stone. Several authors (cf Griffin & Moorhead 1986;
Randolph & Blackburn 1989; Jordaan & Jordaan 1996) see the process
of perception as following a pattern and conceptualise the perceptual
process by means of a model. Although McBurney and Collings
(1984:5) disagree with the use of a model portraying the perceptual
process for certain reasons, Randolph and Blackburn's (1989:83±95)
model is presented to show the process so as to gain a clearer
understanding.
276

4.1 Senses

As the definition of perception implies, the first step in the perceptual

process is the experiencing of multiple stimuli by means of the five
senses (Matlin & Foley 1992:2). Already one notes that physiological
differences and deficiencies in individuals may cause them to perceive
differently. In this instance, Coren, Ward and Enns (1999:2) note that
``... your world is what your senses tell you. The limitations of your
senses set the boundaries of your conscious existence''.

4.2 Obser vation and selection of focus

The sheer amount of information observed by the human senses places

restrictions on the human's ability to process everything at once (Baron
& Byrne 2000:80,136). The continual bombardment of the senses by
phenomena implies that humans will select those which they want to
notice due to a range of factors. Randolph and Blackburn (1989:85±89)
conceptualise this aspect of the perceptual process as the ``observation
and selection of focus''. To them, after stimuli are observed, humans
choose their point of focus due to a range of factors within the
perceiver, the perceived target and the situational context in which the
perception is made (cf Robbins 1991:125±126). The following include
some factors within the perceiver, the target and context which affect
perception:

. The Perceiver
Various researchers identify and emphasise certain characteristics of
the perceiver which can modify perception. Randolph and Blackburn
(1989:87) identify three such factors, namely that which the individual
has previously learnt, as well as the motivation and the personality of
the perceiver, while Coren et al (1999:532±550) see physiological,
gender as well as personality and cognitive differences as contributing
to differences in perception. Robbins (1991:129) sees the attitudes,
interests, motives, experience and expectations of the perceiver as
having an influence on that which is perceived while Johnson
(1994:479) argues in favour of Forgus and Melamed's (1976) categor-
isation. These latter authors include firstly, the influence of social
experience and cultural background (cf Choi & Nisbett 1998:949±960);
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 277

secondly, the impact of the perceiver's values (cf Postman, Bruner and
McGinnies 1948:142±154), attitudes and personality; thirdly, the
dynamics of person perception and lastly the perceptions of causality
in social events as having an influence on that which affects the
perceiver's perception.

. The perceived object/subject

If one looks at an object or subject, you form perceptions of what you
see due to it having certain characteristics. Randolph and Blackburn
(1989:85±86) categorise these characteristics as physical and/or
dynamic.

Physical elements may be size or physical appearance (cf The Sunday

Independent, 7 January 1996:15), intensity (an object's brilliance or a
person's resonance), contrast (objects or persons which stand out
against their background) and novelty (unfamiliarity).

Dynamic elements may include motion (moving objects or people are

more likely to be focussed on), repetition (stimuli that are repeated
often receive more attention) and the arrangement of the target.

. The situational context

The context or situation in which objects or events are perceived
influences subsequent thoughts and behaviour (Randolph and Black-
burn 1989:87). Aspects such as the cultural context (Scherer & Walbott
1994:310±328; Scherer 1997:902±922), the social situation as well as the
location and time of an incident (Randolph & Blackburn 1989:87;
Robbins 1991:129) all have a profound influence on that which is being
perceived.

4.3 Frame of reference filter

After stimuli of a person or object have been experienced by the senses

within a specific situation or context, they are processed through what
Randolph and Blackburn (1989:89±92) term a ``frame of reference
filter''. To these authors, this is the initial phase of the attribution of
meaning to the experienced phenomena.
278

In this frame of reference process, the characteristics of the perceiver

become dominant with past and present experiences rendering a major
role. Past experiences are associated with particular emotions and
cognitions and when similar present experiences are encountered,
humans tend to rely on past feelings and thoughts to interpret the
perceived phenomena (Lewis 1999:42). Present experiences also play
an important role in the perceptual process and may even modify and
influence past thoughts and feelings ``except where [humans] con-
sciously resist their prejudicial influence'' (Johnson 1994:481).

4.4 Allocation of meaning

To Randolph and Blackburn (1989:92±94), the final step in the

perceptual process is the assignment of meaning to the perceived
phenomena that have been selected and processed through the
previously mentioned frame of reference filter. In order to understand
others' and our own behaviour, the process of attribution comes into
operation.

With reference to a social context, while observing other humans in

specific situations, humans make judgements about others and
attribute meaning based on observed behaviour (Cushner et al. 1992:32;
Finchilescu 1992:210; Baron & Byrne 2000:49). Several theories have
been proposed to explain the attribution process (Baron & Byrne
2000:49±57), and although they invariably differ, they all depart from
the premise that a person's behaviour was either caused internally (eg
motives and intentions), externally (some aspect of the social or
physical world) or due to a combination of the two (Tyson 1987:328±
329; Robbins 1991:129±130; Finchilescu 1992:210; Baron & Byrne
2000:49±57). Cognisance must be taken of the fact that although
attribution models are generally valid, Tyson's (1987:331) caution must
be observed where he notes that ``... there are systematic biases which
exist and which can lead to serious errors in the judgements we make''.
Cushner, McClelland and Safford (1992:61) agree and note that in
many instances certain attributions may be incorrect as not all the
information is considered when attributing a cause to a specific
behaviour. Tyson (1987:332) offers a possible answer to this problem
by noting that much research in this field has been conducted in
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 279

Western cultures, with little being done in non-western settings.

Westerners, to Tyson, may approach behaviour in a more individua-
listic and independent manner, while non-western cultures may or
may not be more interdependent, holistic and collective in their
approach (cf Markus & Kitayama 1991:224±253).

However, errors in attribution can and do occur. Common errors in

attribution may be the fundamental attribution error (also known as
the correspondence bias) and the self-serving bias. The fundamental
attribution error is the tendency to overestimate the influence of
internal factors and underestimate the influence of external factors
when judging others' behaviour, while the self-serving bias is when
individuals attribute internal factors to their own successes, while
blaming their failures on external factors. To Baron and Byrne (2000:60)
the strength of both these errors tends to be stronger in independent or
individualistic cultures than in interdependent or holistic cultures.

Errors in the perceptual process may also occur due to an information

overload (cf Baron & Byrne 2000:86). In this instance, strategies are
applied by humans in making sense of so much information, as
accurately as possible. These strategies or shortcuts are referred to as
heuristics.

5 HEURISTICS: MENTAL SHORTCUTS

Humans develop strategies or shortcuts, referred to as heuristics, when

perceiving. Heuristics are used as the exposure to information is
tremendous and strategies are needed to simplify the process. In many
instances these heuristics are valuable, but may very often lead to
perceptual errors (Baron & Byrne 2000:80). Although authors differ in
their categorization of these strategies (cf Sears et al 1985:54; Johnson
1994:482; Baron & Byrne 2000;86±89), only three such strategies and
their potential to digress will be discussed in this article.
280

5.1 Stereotypes

Stereotyping is a generalised assumption attributing identical char-

acteristics (real and imagined) to all members of group or class to
which individuals belong (Reber 1985, sv ``stereotype''; Tyson
1987:341; Johnson 1994:482).

Stereotypes can be either positive or negative (Botha et al. 1993:60). In

the case of the former, stereotyping facilitates easier assimilation of
large amounts of information, while in the latter sense generalisations
can become so common, despite them having no bases and credibility,
leading to inaccurate perceptions (Lewis 1999:46±47) and prejudice
(Baron and Byrne 2000:229±230). Prejudices and negative stereotypes
can therefore hamper intergroup relations (Tyson 1987:341±343),
especially in a country like South Africa.

5.2 Projection

Projection occurs when the perceivers' own characteristics, traits,

emotions and dispositions are attributed to those of other people. This
implies that people's perception of others is influenced more by what
the observer is like, than by what the person being observed is like
(Robbins 1991:133).

5.3 Selective perceptions

Selective perceptions takes place when people selectively interpret

what they perceive based on their own interests, background,
experience and attitudes (Griffin & Moorhead 1986:77). This implies a
failing to take the whole picture into account when drawing inferences.
As the perceiver sees what he or she wants to see, due to their bases of
interpretation, unwarranted conclusions from an ambiguous situation
can be drawn (Robbins 1991:132).

6 THE INTERSUBJECTIVE NATURE OF PERCEPTION

What has transpired from this cursory overview of the perceptual

process is that, due to the uniqueness of each human being, there
should be as many ``subjective realities'' as there are people in this
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 281

world (cf Rock 1975:5; Jordaan & Jordaan 1996:397±404). Common

sense however refutes this claim, as there are instances where different
groups and individuals perceive similarly, for example, perceptual
agreement amongst cultural groups (cf Bergen 1992:6).

When different people or groups have (more or less) reached consensus

about a certain perception, they have reached what Jordaan and
Jordaan (1996:397) term ``intersubjective agreement''. To these authors:
``Intersubjectivity ... ensures that our perceptions of reality and the
appropriateness of our behaviour can be verified through consensual
validation (italics in text)'' (Jordaan & Jordaan 1996:400). However, not
all people within a certain cultural group agree with each other and
there is even a degree of consensus amongst people with totally
different cultural backgrounds, an example being agreement amongst
academics with regard to a certain topic.

Contributing factors to this phenomenon are legion and include

amongst other things, the influence of media (Wiehahn 1987:12), as
well as cultural norms (cf Bergen 1992:6) and learning (Lewis 1999:53).

The importance of the intersubjective nature of perception is that it it

gives one an idea what perceptions prevail in society as well as a means
of understanding and taking such perceptions into account. As Jordaan
and Jordaan (1996:401±402) point out regarding its importance to
conflict resolution:

If we knew what sort of intersubjective categories govern the behaviour of

a particular person or group of people, we would better understand the
reality they perceive. We would, for instance, argue less about what a
particular matter means because we would know that we probably see it
differently.

In the light of the aforesaid, three examples will be discussed briefly in

an attempt to highlight the reality of perceptual differences within
education in South Africa.
282

7 EX AMPLES OF EDUCATIONAL PERCEPTIONS IN

SOUTH AFRICA

Given the dynamic and developmental nature of the perceptual process

and influencing factors, one can expect varied perceptions of certain
educational aspects. Very often, perceptions are used to create negative
and misleading images of South African education and educational
policies thus creating a warped image of the educational reality (De
Vries 1992:36±37). One such example being South Africa's perceived
education crisis.

7.1 The perception of an education crisis

The word crisis is derived from the Greek word kria s iB meaning
``turning point'' (Fowler & Fowler 1976, sv ``crisis''). The Chinese word
for crisis is wei-chi, wei meaning danger and chi meaning an
opportunity (Cushner et al 1992:17). Both the Chinese and Greek thus
perceive the concept as not only posing a threat, but also creating an
opportunity of improvement from this threat.

As a result of perceptual differences, people view the handling of a

crisis differently. One perception is that it is experienced negatively,
others view it as a challenge. This is especially so in the education
system of the country.

South African society has been characterised over the past decade by
accelerated changes. These changes have not been without problems
and uncertainties. These problems and uncertainties in turn create the
idea or perception that South African society is facing an irreversible
breakdown or crisis. Cushner et al. (1992:17) note that many Americans
often think of the term ``crisis'' in a negative sense Ð implying an
upset. This perception is also very evident in South Africa, especially
when referring to the education system.

Reasons why South Africans perceive education in a negative sense are

legion. Possible contributing factors are the role of the media (Wiehahn
1989:12) with newspaper journalists using the concept mainly nega-
tively in newspaper headings when referring to a perceived problem in
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 283

the educational situation (Die Burger, 17 Mei 1993:18). Political parties

also use the term in election rhetoric and propaganda in national
newspapers to canvass votes with promises of addressing this so-called
problem (Sunday Times, 30 May 1993:14; Rapport, 31 Desember 1995:2).

However, to state that all South Africans perceive the concept in a

negative sense would be a blatant generalization. Archbishop Des-
mond Tutu (1995:26) creates what appears to be a balanced impression
when stating that ``as South Africa enters the second year of ...
liberation ... we have inherited a mess: an educational crisis''.
However, he does present a case for opportunity by stating that South
Africans should become responsible for their own destiny by putting
``their shoulders to the wheel''. How and when remain unanswered
questions, but to perceive the education system as an irreversible
situation only creates negative thoughts and behaviour. The answer
lies in perceiving it not only as chaos, but also as a challenge and
opportunity.

Another concept that has and is subject to diverse interpretations is the

notion of democracy.

7.2 A varied perception of democracy

Since the 1994 democratic elections, all aspects of South African society
have reflected the idea of a democracy, with education being no
exception.

However, this term has been subjected to varying perceptions with

individuals and groups giving their own specific interpretation to the
term due to a host of factors. Hartshorne (1992:19) agrees and notes
that ``democracy means different things to different people, and in
recent years the word has been used by those who have little
understanding of it or desire to practise it''.

Not only does the concept of democracy lack a universally accepted

definition, but attempts to define the term are generally ``resisted from
all sides'' (Nguru 1995:59) giving rise to various perceptions of the
concept. According to Nguru (1995:60):
284

Many definitions of democracy tend to be tailor-made to fit specific types

of regimes or systems. They are often little more than exercises in political
marketing to sell those particular regimes or systems.

Even in South Africa, the term has been subjected to many inter-
pretations, possibly because the undemocratic ideology of Apartheid
in South Africa prevented certain groups' access to democratic
structures (Hartshorne 1992:94). Another reason noted by Retief
(1994:39) is that those in the Liberation Movements exiled in
Communist-Socialist countries were led to believe that those societies
reflected and upheld democratic principles.

In the last example a prevalent perception regarding freedom and

authority will briefly be discussed:

7.3 The perception of freedom and authority

To many observers, the authority in many South African education

institutions has fallen into a state of disarray. Tutu (1995:26) sees the
reason as being that ``too many people still mistake freedom for
licence'' thus ignoring the role and significance of authority and of
importance, the need to strike a magical balance between the two
concepts.

Charney (1995:55) and Pityana (1994:22) cite various reasons for this
lack of discipline: students being too politicised, lack of respect for
teachers, lack of disciplined behaviour by teachers and a lack of morals
and values by teachers and learners alike, all leading to a culture of
intolerance, violence and disregard for authority.

Given these contributing factors, one cannot forget that freedom

cannot exist without authority and although they exist as polarities,
they imply one another. To Venter (1992:37±39), freedom derives its
true content from authority, while authority, on the other hand, is only
true if it promotes and protects freedom. One factor contributing
largely to this magical balance is that of the development of self-
discipline. Venter (1992:38) views this as follows:
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 285

If the individual submits himself [/or herself] to inner authority, he [/she]

becomes his [/her] true self, gains the good life and acquires spiritual
freedom and true happiness.

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The aim of this article was to show, in a reasonably elementary fashion,

how human beings make sense of their world. What has transpired is a
complex, dynamic and developmental process which acknowledges
that humans will and very often do differ in their interpretation of that
which is perceived.

It is in the light of the above that certain guidelines and recommen-

dations will be made in order for educational practitioners and
researchers to be more aware of others' thoughts and actions. These
being that:

. By keeping in mind the complexities of the perceptual

process, as well as taking cognisance of influencing factors,
perceptual errors may be minimised through an increased
openness to more information.
. Perceptual errors can be minimised and differences resolved
by communicating with people of different cultures, back-
grounds and training.
. Educational stakeholders should be understanding and
sensitive to others' points of view.
. Perceptual errors may be overcome if there is a willingness to
change one's perceptions when encountering new and
relevant information.
. Because perceptions are dynamic, people should realise that
previously held and current perceptions that were seen as
correct, may be changed due to the emergence of new and
valid information.
. Several factors are responsible for differences in perception
and an understanding and sensitivity to these factors should
be borne in mind when interpreting others' thinking and
behaviour.
286

. Although cultural factors play a large role in the difference in

perception, all their members will not necessarily think and
behave in a certain uniform way.

In conclusion, it is maybe fitting to note Johnson's (1994:487)

observation regarding the importance of knowledge of perceptual
theory in the educational context:

Educators and others may utilize their knowledge of perception theory

more personally to improve their perceptual skills and interactive
behaviour in order to approach their daily tasks and social interaction
more fully and more accurately informed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnhart, R K (ed) 1988. The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology. Sv ``perception''. Bronx,

NY: HW Wilson Company.
Botha, J H; Botha, T R & Engelbrecht, C S 1993. Verandering van stereotipes by
onderwysstudente. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Opvoedkunde, 13(2):60±64.
Baron, R A & Byrne, D 2000. Social Psychology: understanding human interaction. Ninth
edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bergen, T J 1992. The cultural determination of perception. Education Journal, 101:6±8.
Cantril, H 1968. The nature of social perception. In Social perception: the development of
interpersonal impressions edited by H Toch & HC Smith. Princeton, NJ: D Van
Nostrand.
Charney, C 1995. Voices of a new democracy: African expectations in the new South Africa.
Research Report no. 38, January. Johannesburg: Centre for Policy Studies.
Choi, I & Nisbett, R E 1998. Situational salience and cultural differences in the
correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24:949±960.
Coren, S; Ward, L M & Enns, J T 1999. Sensation and Perception. Fifth edition. Orlando,
Fla: Harcourt Brace.
Cushner, K; McClelland, A & Safford, P L 1992. Human diversity in education: an integrative
approach. New York: Mcgraw.
Cutting, J E 1987. Perception and information. Annual Review of Psychology, 38:61±90.
De Vries, C G 1992. Aspekte van die Filosofie van Skoolonderwys. Ongepubliseerde
MEd-notas. Universiteit van Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Die Burger 1993. Krisis in swart skole al erger. 17 Mei: 1.
 The issue of perception: some educational implications 287

Finchilescu, G 1991. Social cognition and attributions. In Social Psychology in South Africa
edited by D Foster and J Louw-Potgieter. Johannesburg: Lexicon.
Forgus, R H & Melamed, L E 1976. Perception: A cognitive-stage approach. Second edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fowler, F G & Fowler, H W 1976. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Sv
``crisis''. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, R W & Moorhead, G 1986. Organizational behavior. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hartshorne, K 1992. Crisis and challenge: Black education 1910±1990. Cape Town: Oxford
University Press.
Johnson, N A 1994. The pervasive, persuasive power of perceptions. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, XL(4):475±497.
Jordaan, W & Jordaan, J 1996. Man in context. Second edition. Isando: Lexicon.
Kearney, M 1984. World view. Novato, Calif: Chandler & Sharp.
Lewis, A 1992. Individual and community needs as aspects of the education crisis in
South Africa: A historical educational overview. MEd thesis, University of
Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Lewis, A 1999. Past and present perceptions surrounding mission education: A historical-
metabletical overview. DEd dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Lewis, C T & Short, C 1975. A Latin Dictionary. Sv ``perceptHo'', ``percHpHo''. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Markus, H & Kitayama, S 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98:224±253.
Matlin, M W & Foley, H J 1992. Sensation and perception. Third edition. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McBurney, D H & Collings, V B 1984. Introduction to sensation/perception. Second edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McGregor, K 1993. Clash of classroom cultures. Weekend Argus, 2/3 October: 17.
Nguru, GM 1995. Education and democracy. South African Journal of Education, 15(2):59±
62.
Pityana, S 1994. Restore order in schools. Sunday Times, 22 May: 22.
Postman, L; Bruner, J S & McGinnies, E 1948. Personal values as selective values in
perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43:142±154.
Rock, I 1975. An introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.
Randolph, W A & Blackburn, R S 1989. Managing Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA:
Irwin.
Reber, A S 1985. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Sv ``cultural relativism'', ``halo
effect'', ``motivation'', ``perception'', ``projection'', ``stereotype''. London: Penguin
Books.
288

Retief, F P 1994. Die demokratisering van die Onderwys. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe,
34(2): 138±148.
Robbins, S P 1991. Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Scherer, K R 1997. The role of culture in emotion-antecedent behaviour. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73:902±922.
Scherer, K R & Walbott, H G 1994. Evidence for universality and cultural variation of
differential emotion response patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 66:310±328.
Sears, D O; Freedman, J L & Peplau, L A 1985. Social Psychology. Fifth edition. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shaver, K G & Tarpy, R M 1993. Psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Simpson, J A & Weiner, E S C 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Vol.XI. Second edition.
Sv ``perception''. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sunday Times 1993. Black Education Crisis. A teacher's point of view. 30 May: 14.
The Sunday Independent 1996. Everywhere, little guys end up getting the short end of the
stick. 7 January: 15.
Tibbetts, P 1969. Introduction. In Perception: selected readings in Science and Phenomenology
edited by P Tibbetts. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Tutu, D 1995. We must not expect manna from heaven. Sunday Times. 23 April: 26.
Tyson, G A 1987. Social Psychology. In Introduction to Psychology: A South African
Perspective edited by GA Tyson. Johannesburg: Westro Educational Books.
Venter, I S J 1992. Freedom and authority in education. In Education Ð Past, Present and
Future, edited by E G Kruger. Pretoria: Euro Publications.
Wiehahn, N 1987. Moet hulle nie verwar met die feite nie. Rapport, 4 Januarie: 12.