Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2010 Unraveling Conflicting Interpretations: A Reexamination of the 1916 Report on Social Studies C. Gregg Jorgensen Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, and the Secondary Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Jorgensen, C. Gregg, "Unraveling Conflicting Interpretations: A Reexamination of the 1916 Report on Social Studies" (2010). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 633. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/633 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNRAVELING CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS: A REEXAMINATION OF THE 1916 REPORT ON SOCIAL STUDIES by C. Gregg Jorgensen A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Education (Curriculum and Instruction) Approved: Barry M. Franklin, Ph.D. Ronald W. Evans, Ed.D. Major Professor Committee Member Martha Whitaker, Ph.D. Barre Toelken, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Jeanne Thomas, Ph.D. Patricia Gantt, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Steven P. Camicia, Ph.D. Byron R. Burnham, Ed.D. Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2010 ii Copyright © C. Gregg Jorgensen 2010 All rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Unraveling Conflicting Interpretations: A Reexamination of the 1916 Report on Social Studies by C. Gregg Jorgensen, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2010 Major Professor: Barry M. Franklin, Ph.D. Department: School of Teacher Education and Leadership This study examines the 1916 Report on Social Studies in order to determine how it has been interpreted and regarded over time. The underlying question involved is “Which interpretation, or interpretations, most embodies the intent, goals, and purpose of the 1916 Committee”? Key members of the 1916 committee have been identified for extended research and analysis. One additional individual frequently quoted throughout the Report, John Dewey, has been included in this research on the 1916 committee. The design, format, and content of the 1916 Report on Social Studies was closely examined. This study dissected the three individual reports by time, intent, topic, and authority. The wide variety of interpretations offered by the scholars identified for this study was examined within an organizational framework utilized to discuss and analyze the broad spectrum of interpretations that exist. This examination of the report encompassed the existing theories, the meaning and intent of the 1916 committee, as well as the social and iv political aspects and impacts of the era. The overarching intent of this study was to make sense of the various scholarly interpretations and offer insights as to whether or not a consensus of opinion among scholars existed. This study explored if, in fact, there was one dominant interpretation, or whether or not different interpretations were possible for the 1916 Report on Social Studies. That is, was there an opportunity for this study to employ a new lens through which to view the 1916 Report on Social Studies? (265 pages) v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to begin by expressing my heartfelt thanks to Ron Evans at San Diego State University. Dr. Evans acted as an advisor, mentor, and a committee member in the final 2 years of my dissertation. I cannot adequately express how appreciative I am for the generous commitment of time he provided and for his guidance at every stage of the process. I also want to acknowledge and wholeheartedly thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Barry M. Franklin, and the other members of my committee, Dr. Martha Whitaker, Dr. Jeanne Thomas, Dr. Barre Toelken, Dr. Patricia Gantt, and Dr. Steven P. Camicia, for their support through the various stages of my progress and the conclusion of my oral defense. When I was in the drafting stages of my dissertation, I was most fortunate to connect with both Fred Newmann and Herbert Kliebard of the University of Wisconsin- Madison. I would like to thank Dr. Newmann for arranging to meet with me and engaging in an enlightening dialog in Madison. I extend special thanks to Dr. Kliebard for graciously allowing me to share my idea and approach with him in his home in Madison. Both Dr. Newmann and Dr. Kliebard were kind enough to review portions of my dissertation and to provide challenging written feedback. I remain extremely grateful for their assistance and thank them for their kindness. In addition, I want to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Murray Nelson at Penn State University for reviewing the early drafts of my final dissertation and for providing valuable written feedback. Moreover, I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Rene Antrop-Gonzalez at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for his support and assistance along the way. vi Further, I want to thank Kay Camperell at Utah State University. In the early stages of my dissertation work, Dr. Camperell continually brought issues related to social studies education to my attention. She provided a great deal of sound advice and support. As always, I benefited tremendously from the ongoing encouragement of my mother, Joan, and my stepfather, Dick Arndt. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to Diane Schlough. Not only did she edit this dissertation, but provided insight and feedback along the way. I am most grateful for her continued support. C. Gregg Jorgensen vii CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 Problem Overview .......................................................................................... 1 Statement of Thesis ......................................................................................... 5 Overview of Key Arguments .......................................................................... 6 Overview of Chapters ..................................................................................... 12 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 14 II. THE COMMITTEE ........................................................................................ 15 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 15 Clarence Darwin Kingsley .............................................................................. 20 Thomas Jesse Jones......................................................................................... 26 Arthur W. Dunn .............................................................................................. 35 J. Lynn Barnard ............................................................................................... 40 James Harvey Robinson .................................................................................. 43 William H. Mace ............................................................................................. 48 John Dewey ..................................................................................................... 52 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58 III. THE REPORTS .............................................................................................. 60 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 60 1913 Preliminary Statement ............................................................................ 60 1915 Report on Community Civics ................................................................ 67 1916 Report on Social Studies ........................................................................ 74 Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................... 98 IV. THE SCHOLARS ........................................................................................... 100 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 100 Celebratory Historians .................................................................................... 105 Revisionist Interpretations .............................................................................. 110 viii Page Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 187 V. THREADING THE NEEDLE OF INTERPRETATIONS ............................. 189 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 189 Different Intentions and Influences ................................................................ 189 Social Efficiency Influence ............................................................................. 190 Multiple Influences ......................................................................................... 197 Influential 1916 Committee