Indoctrination in Education: Offering an Alternative Conception
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2008 Indoctrination in education: Offering an alternative conception Barbara A. Peterson University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Peterson, Barbara A., "Indoctrination in education: Offering an alternative conception" (2008). Doctoral Dissertations. 435. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/435 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDOCTRINATION IN EDUCATION: OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION BY BARBARA A. PETERSON BA, University of New Hampshire, 1986 MAT, University of New Hampshire, 1992 DISSERTATION Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education May, 2008 UMI Number: 3308385 Copyright 2008 by Peterson, Barbara A. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3308385 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED C2008 Barbara Peterson This dissertation has been examined and approved. Wv^r- Dissertation Director, Barbara E. Houston, Ph.D. Professor of Education Maria Brettschneider, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science and Women's Studies ~yi^yj^y filler, Ed.D. Professor of Education H^koWj? jC Michael K. Ferber, Ph.D. Professor of English Joseph7 J. Onos^pf Ph.D. Asgefciate Professor of Education Date ' r ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to give my warmest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Barbara Houston, who was with me from the very beginning, always with that uncanny and unique ability to push me harder than I have ever been pushed while making me feel motivated, energized, and inspired. I have learned much more than how to be a scholar. I would also like to acknowledge the generous help and guidance of my committee members: Dr. Ann Diller for her genial way of keeping me moving forward, Dr. Joe Onosko for his tremendous insights and gracious encouragement, Dr. Maria Brettschneider for her kind support and guidance, and Dr. Michael Ferber for his friendship, advice, and support. In addition, I wish to acknowledge my daughter Cory Towne who gave me much needed praise and encouragement, my son Kalden Alexander who always provided smiles and hugs when I most needed them, and my husband Scott Alexander whose unfaltering love and unbelievable patience in listening to draft after endless draft enabled me to keep going and finally finish. Lastly, I would like to thank my mother Pat Peterson who always showed genuine interest in my work and made me feel like my efforts were useful and important. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ABSTRACT v CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem of Indoctrination 1 Definitional Criteria 10 Outline of the Chapters 14 Chapter II 14 Chapter III 18 Chapter IV 21 Chapter V 22 Chapter VI 24 Chapter VII 26 Chapter VIII 28 II. EXAMINING CONTENT, METHOD, INTENT AND CONSEQUENCES AS FEATURES OF INDOCTRINATION 30 Defining Indoctrination in Terms of Content 31 Defining Indoctrination in Terms of Method 54 Defining Indoctrination in Terms of Intention 70 Defining Indoctrination in Terms of Consequences 78 Summary 81 ADOPTIN A MORE CRITICAL LENS: EXAMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH PRIOR CONCEPTIONS OF INDOCTRINATION MEET THE NEW PURPOSES ... 83 The First Definitional Criterion 84 The Second Definitional Criterion 87 The Third Definitional Criterion 95 The Fourth Definitional Criterion 107 DEFENDING AN INTENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INDOCTRINATION 123 Snook's Notion of Intent 124 An Alternative Notion of Intent Offered and Defended 130 AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION OF INDOCTRINATION OFFERED 138 Rationale for Adopting a Misakian Pragmatic Framework 139 Misak's Notion of Truth and Truth-Seeking Inquiry 147 Some Further Reflections on Misak's Work as it Relates to Issues of Indoctrination 156 Truth-Apt Beliefs and Assertions 158 Community of Inquiry: Who Belongs and Whom Can We Exclude? 175 Summary 190 EXAMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCHOOL CONTEXT IN IDENTIFYING AND AVOIDING INDOCTRINATION 192 Taking Another Look at the Role that Content, Method, and Consequences Play in Indoctrination 195 Content 196 Method 199 Consequences 200 Contextual Considerations in Avoiding Indoctrination 203 The Pedagogical Context 204 The Structural Context 207 The Ideological Context 212 Summary of Contextual Influences 217 VII. EXPLORING THE NOTION OF SCHOOLS AS AGENTS OF INDOCTRINATION 220 Exploring the Possibility of Schools as Indoctrinators 222 Contextual Influences on Student Learning and Teachers' Intentions 223 Theoretical Implications of Ascribing Schools with Intentionality 234 Concluding Remarks 250 VIII. THE PAYOFF: ILLUSTRATING THE USEFULNESS OF THE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION OF INDOCTRINATION 251 The School Context 252 Mr. Dubois' Class 256 Ms.Sandora's Class 266 Concluding Remarks 278 BIBLIOGRAPHY 284 ABSTRACT INDOCTRINATION IN EDUCATION: OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION by Barbara A. Peterson University ot New Hampshire, May, 2008 Peace Education courses, as well as others that teach marginalized values and beliets (e.g., race relations, queer studies, and feminist studies) are particularly vulnerable to the charge of indoctrination. This allegation is political rather than scholarly and it is not clear what precisely teachers of such subjects are being accused of doing or trying to do. However, the charge is powerful enough to prevent such courses from being offered at public schools and universities and to remove them when they are already part of the curriculum. To provide teachers and schools the confidence to take on these marginalized and controversial courses, we need a conception of indoctrination that meets the following purposes: (1) allows us to better understand and respond to the persistent pejorative connation of the word, (2) enables us to identify indoctrinary endeavors when they occur, and (3) guides us in developing educational programs that help avoid it. Existing conceptions of indoctrination are critically examined. It is argued that, while LA. Snook's intentional analysis is the most promising in meeting the purposes of this work as stated above, his analysis does not go far enough to encourage teachers to, not only reflect on what student outcomes they hope to achieve, but what outcomes they are likely to achieve given their efforts in class and the particular school context in which they work. Further, it is argued that none of the prior conceptions address the possibility that schools (i.e., the policies, practices, traditions, goals, curriculum, decision-making structures, etc.) as well as individual teachers may be agents of indoctrination. Cheryl Misak's pragmatic conception of truth is examined for its usefulness in providing a notion of indoctrination that prompts teachers and schools to seriously consider how their educational endeavors shape the manner in which students come to hold their beliefs. It is concluded that an intentional analysis of indoctrination, defined in terms of a Misakian notion of truth-seeking inquiry, allows us to adequately respond to charges of indoctrination and know what steps to take to diminish the likelihood of engaging in indoctrination. VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem of Indoctrination My interest in indoctrination comes from my experiences as a peace educator. I developed a Peace Studies course and taught it for years at a local high school. At the beginning of my course and for each year thereafter, I encountered a great deal of criticism which generally took the form of a charge of indoctrination. I was not personally criticized; their indictment was against the assumed nature of the class. The disapproval was expressed by persons who knew nothing of the content of this class, my teaching methods, or my educational aims in general. The implication in their charge was that teaching peace is inherently indoctrinary. I found the charge intriguing and looked into it further. After a good deal of investigation, I found myself agreeing with a professor who encountered similar criticisms when he tried to institute a peace studies major at the university where he teaches. He claimed that the charge of indoctrination against peace education is "political" rather than scholarly (Ferber, 2003). Though I searched for a scholarly indictment against 1 peace education, the only things I was able to tind were newspaper reports about certain groups charging peace studies courses at local public schools with indoctrination. The charges of indoctrination reported