This dissertation has been i microfilmed exactly as received 68-8807 BUTTERFIELD, William Lee, 1930- SECONDARY CURRICULUM MODEL BUILDING USING A SYNTHESIS OF THE THOUGHT OF HAROLD ALBERTY AND JEROME BRUNER. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1967 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SECONDARY CURRICULUM MODEL BUILDING USING A SYNTHESIS OP THE THOUGHT OF HAROLD ALBERTY AND JEROME BRUNER DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By William Lf^Butterfield, A.B., B.D. ****** The Ohio State University 1967 Approved by Adviser School of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to express his appreciation to Dr. Paul Klohr, for his helpful suggestions, his warm concern, and his always open door; to Dr. Bernard Mehl, for his great interest in students as individuals, and for his indefatigable spirit in opposing institutionalization wherever it dehumanizes persons; and to Dr. Everett Kircher, an incisive critic and teacher, whose questions cause his students to re-examine the values they hold and teach. ii VITA May 2, 1930 Born - Lima, Ohio 1952 . B.A., Ohio Northern University 1956 . B.D. Garrett Theological Seminary, North­ western University 1956-1967 • Ministerial roles at North Broadway Metho­ dist Church Minister to Youth, Education, Counseling, and Students Related community activity with Juvenile Court, Inner city Junior High Study hall and group work, Columbus City Recreation Department, etc. PUBLICATIONS Rebellion for Good, Nashville: Methodist Publishing Co., 1967 "Adults Vs. Youth: Who Will Win?" Workers ..with Youth, November, 1967 FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Studies in Curriculum and Instruction. Professor Paul Klohr Studies in Guidance and Counseling. Professor C. Gratton Kemp Studies in History and History of Education. Professor Bernard Mehl Studies iri Bhilosophy of Education. Professor Everett Kircher iii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... ii VITA ...................................... iii ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................... vi Chapter I. THE NATURE OP THE STUDY— AN OVERVIEW ........... 1 Postulates of the Study Definitions Hypotheses Procedures II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CURRICULUM MODEL BASED ON DOWNEY AND T A B A ....................... 16 Downey and His Curriculum Model Taba and Her Curriculum Model The Model for Use in this STudy III. CURRICULUM CONCEPTS OP HAROLD ALBERT! PRESENTED IN A CURRICULUM M O D E L ............. 53 Values on Which to Base Curriculum Objectives Implementation Outcomes IV. CURRICULUM CONCEPTS OP JEROME BRUNER PRESENTED IN A CURRICULUM M O D E L ............. 86 Values on Which to Base Curriculum Objectives Implementation Outcomes V. A SYNTHESIS OF THE CONCEPTS OP HAROLD ALBERTY AND JEROME BRUNER IN A CURRICULUM MODEL FOR ORGANIZATION OP SECONDARY EDUCATION ......... 12H iv CONTENTS (Contd.) ; Chapter Page VI. SUMMARY OP RESULTS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .......... 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 212 v ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Downey's Curriculum Model ...................... 30 2. Synthetic Model for Conceptualizing Middle-Level Theory .......................... 50 / vi CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE STUDY— AN OVERVIEW In an open society where new ideas and concepts are constantly being generated, and where technology also acts as a catalyst for change, any useful curriculum theory must be viable and comprehensive. Since World War I, two major theories of curriculum development have been in evidence in the United States. Charles Brauner refers to the first as experimentalism, evolving into progressivism; and the second he dubs the "current academic emphasis. Before the rise of progressivism, the secondary school curriculum was typically segmented into separate courses, with great emphasis on subject matter content. In fact, In its inception, the high school (secondary school) was con­ ceived to have as its primary function the preparation of students for college; and the curriculum was ordered accordingly. During the first half of the 20th century, the character of the high school changes a great deal. Many more students entered the school and stayed for a greater length of time. More importantly, they came with a variety of motives and capaci­ ties. The high school had become a popular insti­ tution. It was no longer for the elite and it ■^Charles Brauner, Education as a Literary Discipline (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), p. 137* 2 was no longer thought of as a college- preparatory institution. The high school had no alternative but to change. It could not have remained the kind of high school it had been at the beginning of the century and claimed any kind of popular support. These changes in the high school led to criticisms that the high school, in becoming more democratic, was losing its academic soul.2 Progressivism had, as its prime-mover, the educational philosophy of John Dewey. Dewey’s ideas were implemented and put into practice in curriculum partly as a result of the work of William H. Kilpatrick and Harold Alberty. Con­ centrating on the latter, Alberty took the project method of Kilpatrick and worked it into a systematic method of teaching.3 Alberty was also involved in the Thirty Schools Study, or Eight Year Study, conducted under the auspices of the Progressive Education Association. In addition, he has continued to represent his Interpretation of the ideas of progressive education to the present. His work on the core curriculum was a further Implementation of the project method. Written within this decade, his most recent book U on curriculum makes him a contemporary thinker. Thus it would appear that the work of Harold Alberty represents a sample of the most current thought in progressive education, 2Robert Ulrich, Education in Western Culture (New York: Harcourt, Bruce and World, Inc., 19&5), p. ^ 7 . ^Harold Alberty, A Study of the Project Method in Education (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1927)* li Harold B. Alberty and Elsie J. Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curriculum (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1962). 3 and yet is firmly imbued in the tradition of progressivism as well. Progressive education never really became the dominant educational theory of the United States in terms of being fully practiced in the public schools. Outside a few schools . the activity movement [progressive education] in its genuine form found no home. Some of its aura and some of its devices did. The unit, the project, the whole child, the arousal of effort through interest, respect for the needs of the child, a revulsion against coertion in instruc­ tion— these became a part of the common vocabu­ lary, and perhaps even part of the common attitude among professional school people.5 The period between 1946 and 1957 could well be des­ cribed as a period of no dominant educational theory. Having faltered during World War II, progressivism never re-established itself educationally. In fact, progressivism had been under sttack by the Essentlalists all during the rise of the former. But the attack was largely negativistlc, not really offering another alternative. Most of the Essentalists are gone . but not their criticism. Barely smouldering during the forties, it suddenly burst into flames when, to the national surprise, the Russians orbited the world's first satellite. This was followed by a great wave of criticism . which . rolled over education.® ^Harry S. Broudy and John R. Palmer, Exemplars of Teaching Method (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965)3 pp. 160-161. ^Adolphe E. Meyer, Ah Educational History of the Western World (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 19&5), p. 476. A number of statements and studies resulted. James B. Conant's The American High School Today called for larger high schools and for emphasis in the sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages for able students, about whom he was primarily concerned.^ Apparently these subjects stressed by Conant are required, in that a technocracy must have a large group of scientifically trained persons, aware of the world in which we live. This emphasis has been reinforced Q by stress on national goals as educational goals. John W. Gardner in National Goals for Education spells out a newly emerging role for education and for governmental involvement to stimulate research building, teacher training and recruitment. Education is seen as the bulwark of national I Q defense and therefore worthy of national (federal) support.? Even prior to this report, The National Defense Education Act of 1958 projected federal aid into the realm of education. The Pursuit of Excellence, a report financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, tried to have it both ways. One still hears arguments over quantity versus quality education. Behind such argu­ ments is the assumption that a society can choose to educate a few people exceedingly well or to ^James B. Conant, The American High School Today (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959). ^Paul Woodring and John Scanlon, American Education Today (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19t>3), p. x. ^John Gardner, "National Goals in Education,' Goals for Americans, the President's Commission on National Goals (New York: Prentice-Hall, i960). educate a great number of people somewhat less well, but It cannot do both. But a modern society such as ours . has no choice but to do both.l° Yet academic excellence