Conceptual Model for a Modular Approach to the First Course in Foundations of Education
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1972 Conceptual model for a modular approach to the first course in foundations of education. Nicholas Appleton University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Appleton, Nicholas, "Conceptual model for a modular approach to the first course in foundations of education." (1972). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2569. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2569 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR A MODULAR APPROACH TO THE FIRST COURSE IN FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION A Dissertation Presented By Nicholas Rogers Appleton Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 1972 (c) Nicholas Rogers Appleton 1972 All Rights Reserved ii / } CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR A MODULAR APPROACH TO THE FIRST COURSE IN FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION A Dissertation By Nicholas Rogers Appleton Approved as to style and content by /U s'- • • ' • •' : -x ei x (Chairman of Committee j - h; ' : ,| /! (Head of ^Department) / ' '. • / /V/. ... — < /Y/ / / / (Tfcmher”) / / D ^#//= <Jl /(Member ) IT / // /> x// / 7 7 rL r ? -A /'/xxx1 • — • — I llll M— ^ (Member / i/ May 1972 I would like to thank Prof essor Louis Fischer whose support and guidance proved invaluable in the writing of this dis sertation. "Thanks u t Lou I iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER II. CULTURAL PLURALISM 15 Introduction Culture Pluralism Cultural Pluralism in the United States Public Education and Cultural Pluralism Key Resources and Teaching Suggestions CHAPTER III. DEMOCRACY 64 Introduction Theoretic Foundations Criticism of Democracy Democracy in the United States Democracy and Cultural Pluralism Education and Democracy Key Resources and Teaching Suggestions CHAPTER IV. FOUR EXAMPLES OF SECONDARY MODULES • • • 116 Educating the Powerless Professionalism in Education Religion and Public Education The Civil Rights of Teachers CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 177 Summary Administrative Considerations Recommendations for Further Research APPENDIX 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION St atemont of Problem 1 radi ti onally , Social Foundations of Education has been a major component in most teacher education programs. John Dewey recognized its importance in The S chool and Society and Democracy and Bducat ion when he discussed the ubiquitous network of interrelated bonds between the individual and the parent society and, consequently, the entiro educational enterprise. William Stanley cogently summarized this relationship when he noted that: . • . every dimension of the educational enter- prise implies some theory of education, as every theory of education implies some conception of the nature of man, of the meaning of the good and the public welfare, of the nature of knowledge and r the wa 3 in which it is discovered and tested, of the relation of the school to the social order, including the processes of change, of the basis of authority in education and of the way in which man should be related to man in the coop- ^ erative and associative enterprises of human life. However widespread the general agreement that education is rooted to some degree in the social and philosophical foundations, there seems to be little agreement concerning actual manifestation and expression it takes in teacher edu- cation curricula. William Howick, while reviewing a social foundations text, stated, "it is probable that no other course varies as much in content and structure as does the first courso in educational foundations* The obviously courageous writer of this introductory material assumes a task which is Herculean in its dimensions."^ To exemplify this notion of diversity three scholars each at a different institution, gave three different interpretations of the foundations course usually required for teacher certification. William VanTil stated: . * . I have listened to the conflicting voices of those curriculum thinkers who urge that the individual learner be regarded as tho source of curriculum content, those who instead urge that the curriculum be based upon tho concerns of the surrounding society, thoso who instead regard the only proper work of the curriculum to be the clarification of values, and those who instead base curriculum on the processes, structure, and tho modes of inquiry of scholars in separate fields. ... I have reached in curriculum my own theoretical position meaningful to mo which holds that learning experiences must meet tho personal- social needs of the learner, must illuminate the social realities of our times, and must help to develop humane values based on tho persistent use of the method of intelligence. Such learning experiences cannot be limited to any inherited organization of subject matters but must embrace the interdisciplinary problems crucial to man in society. So as to the first course in educational studies, I suggest that it attompt to meet the personal-social needs of the learner, illuminate social realities, and help to develop humane values. And this, I suspect, places me in oot^o sit ion to what appear to mo tho two major schools of thought concerning the first courso. The first school of thought holds that the first course in educational studies should be a social foundations of education course which conveys the major concepts concerning schools and society from economics the social sciences such as anthropology , etc., through either separate fields or interdisci- plinary content representative of philosophy of 3 education, educational sociology, history of education, comparative education, otc. The second school of thought holds that the first course in educational studies should be a general introduction to education which concentrates on the personal decisions which must bo made by young people as they contemplate embarking on the occupation of teaching. The first school of thought is described by its critics as academic, pretentious, and overly int ellectuali zati on • The second school of thought is described by its critics as trivial, sentimental, and akin to Dick and Jane primers Van Cleve Morris noted: Our practice follows very closely upon some of the ideas suggested by the other speakers, particularly that of Professor Epstein who emphasizes near the close of his remarks the importance of not what is taught to students but "how it is taught to them." Also, our efforts reflect one of Paul Nash's ideas, namely, that a first course should be closely related to the "practicum mode. ..." Perhaps the most important aim of the course is to acquaint the student with the manipulation of theoretical concepts. By this we mean the analysis, criticism, and applica- tion of theoretical ideas in the field of educa- tion. Beyond this one particular injunction, we leavo each of our instructors free to "do his own thing" in the teaching of this course. Erwin .Epstein remarked: The nature of any course should be dictated by its aims. The primary aim of undergraduate education courses is to train competent teachers. • . Ilcnco, the first course in educational studies should not bo one particular course. It should bo any course that promotes inquiry into the inter- relationships botwocn child, school and socioty. • In as much as thore is potentially an almost endless variety of courses that can servo this end, the first course in educational studies should be governed first by the individual's interests and careor proclivities, and second by the interests and capabilities of faculty members responsible for the teacher education program. -5 As an expression of some of the concerns stated above 4 the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin at Madison describes its foundations requirement this way: In an attempt to make the foundational course requirements more relevant to the individual student, the module program was initiated. ... Modules are designed to provide students with more depth in a specific topic than appears in regular courses. They also add greater flexi- bility, allowing each student to choose from among several courses, those courses which are r most appropriate to his own needs and interests. In sum, it seems to be generally agreed that educa- tional foundations has a place in teacher education curriculum. However, only a rather vague consensus that the substance of the course should include some components relating to society, schools, and education is evident. As Professor Howick pointed out earlier no other course varies as much in content and structure as does the first course in educational foundations. James Conant vigorously criticized this diversity and lack of structure while investigating teacher education. He found that foundations courses often attempted to patch together scraps of history, philosophy, political theory, 7 sociology, and pedagogical ideology. In a more recent statement Moses Stambler described: .... the traditional course in social founda- tion as having a heavy reliance on bits and fragments of insight from the social sciences and humanities, this course consists