By examining major documents for tensions regarding the teaching of literature in the field of secondary English education, this dissertation addressed the following questions: (1) What assumptions about learning and knowledge helped to shape the field? (2) To what extent does the field demonstrate consistency or change in its discourse defined-positions? and (3) How might current conversations in the field fit within a larger historical, social, and political context, thus equipping English educators to better articulate and situate their own pedagogical beliefs?
Stephen Toulmins (1958) model of an argument served as a means of analyzing the fields ongoing conversation about the teaching of literature, as revealed in its central documents and publications. The study examined these works, which were generally offered in response to texts from outside of the field, during three periods throughout the history of English education as a profession: the inaugural era of the field, the social reform era, and the era of accountability. Analyses, which focused on asserted claims and the data and warrants supporting them, demonstrated that the field has remained relatively consistent in its claims about the purposes and methodologies for the teaching of literature, particularly with its emphasis on experience, a concept commonly associated with the progressive movement in education.
This study, which provides insight into the shared values among English education, serves as a continuation of the conversation in the field. It highlights the relevance of key works from the field and of the voices of major historical figures as well as of current participants, and it provides a historical lens for examining contemporary issues in English education. In doing so, it promotes a synonymous, rather than dichotomous, relationship between tradition and reform. Throughout history, when English educators have felt outward pressure to redefine their field, they have turned to the progressive notion of experience as their guiding tradition. Despite the connotations usually associated with traditional education, this analysis demonstrates that reform or progresstypically juxtaposed against traditionis the tradition for the field of English education.
Reference
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LSU/oai:etd.lsu.edu:etd-07072006-223611 |
| Date | 10 July 2006 |
| Creators | Reed, Deborah Davis |
| Contributors | Gaines Foster, Petra Munro Hendry, William Doll, Jr., Claudia Eppert, Nancy Nelson |
| Publisher | LSU |
| Source Sets | Louisiana State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07072006-223611/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached herein a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below and in appropriate University policies, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds