Macmillan and McClellan's article on the use of means-ends reasoning in education provides a needed counterweight to recent attempts to explain development and change in human behavior on the basis of learning theory alone. 1 Because the word "education" embodies at least two different models of behavior, that of teaching and that of learning, it is easy to overemphasize the one to the sacrifice of the other. While teaching is necessarily an active process, involving some thought about both the direction to be taken and the materials available to accomplish it, learning may occur without such deliberation. A newly developed pa,ttern of behavior need not be the result of ,any conscious design, but may have arisen only from the demands of external, environmental cireumstanees. Recent attempts to explain human development have tended to emphasize the passiveness of learning rather than the ,activeness of teaching. Among other things, the essay by Macmillan and McClellan is an attempt to fit teaching back into education.
The analysis presented by the authors does not rule out the importance of learning theory but it suggests to me that the significance of such a theory may be viewed in light of the guidelines it provides for the introduction of certain procedures and interventions. Yet statements :about the nature and appropriateness of any given procedure or intervention remains the domain of a theory of instruction.
There are some, however, who may reject the analysis on the grounds that it rests upon a concept of internal thought processes and specifically upon the notion of intention. Those taking this point of view would argue that a clear description 1