SAyWfc? V - 1’- ' 72-HSUl I KUNKEL, Marion David, 1940- INQUIRY IN :t h e SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan i ©Copyright by Marion David Kunkel 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED INQUIRY IN THE SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marlon David Kunkel, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by AcTvi'ser Department of Education PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have Indistinct p rin t. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS PREFACE The thinking for this dissertation seems to have ■ 4 begun during my experience in teaching high school English in response to the question continually raised by my stu­ dents, "Why do we study English?" Over a period of about six years while teaching, the conventional rationalizations of English programs of whatever sort began to make no sense to me at all. In fact, under the stimulus of my students' questioning, I was beginning to suspect that many of the actual results of English,instruction were the exact opposite of the intended ones. It wasn't until much later when I had seriously considered some possible damaging effects of compulsory education, and the role of linguistic and cultural prejudice in American society that the full perversity of what I had attempted to rationalize came upon me. The conventional arguments I used to answer my students' questions about studying. English revolved around three notions: communication, thinking, and humanity. In English classes, for Instance, we develop communication skills by providing opportunity for students to use communication media (especially language) and to receive ii r: feedback on the effectiveness of their attempts* Bub my own dawning awareness of communication problems In human affairs led me to believe that no amount of such skills could in any way lead to better understanding. There seemed to be something much more basic to mutual under­ standing than the kinds of skills students were expected to master In the English classroom. My argument regarding the role of English studies In the development of thinking seemed equally superficial to me with the passage of time. Most students, It seemed to me, were able to get by in school without really thinking. School for most seemed to be a place for learning to pass courses rather than learning to think. My own teaching objectives, derived from the so-called societal expecta­ tions of the "educated" person, left little time for think­ ing in my own classes. Furthermore, It seemed that much of the motivation for learning English in my students as well as in myself was a function of our tacit acceptance of the value expectations of the vast, impersonal and anonymous ideal other to whom we felt we needed to conform. These considerations and others led me to raise some serious questions about the reward system of schooling which seemed to reward unthinking at the expense of thinking. The sheer inhumanity and injustice of societal and school expectations with regard to learning "Englibh" (one of the so-called "humanities"5 did not fully dawn on me ill. until much later. It seemed to me so obvious that reflec­ tion on life experiences was a valuable component of becoming educated, that I had no reason to doubt the validity of the direct teaching of literature and film. Teaching for exposure to these art works, even if it fre­ quently led to passive memorization on the part of mo3t students, was worth whatever the cost in terms of trouble to the students or myself. My own frustration, however, in not being able to "communicate" the literary experiences which were so vital to me led me to think carefully through some notions of aesthetics— none of which seemed to clarify the problem of communicating such experiences. During this period, an observation of William Wordsworth continually haunted me. He said that on each of three visits to Tintern Abbey several years apart, his perception of the scene was dif­ ferent. The scene had a different meaning for him each time because there were changes Inside himself which fol­ lowed upon new experiences and the reflective thinking tha they induced. My own experience of changing perceptions and of changing responses to literature and music led me to believe that the most promising approach to the teaching of literature would somehow involve.the acceleration of the process of experiencing and reflecting. These experiences and reflections would become the basis for understanding and response* Yet it seemed especially hopeless at this time that these things could happen within the confines of the English classroom. My own narrow presumption that the "educated" person's thinking structures ought to serve as models for the direct development of children's thought prevented me from considering a student-centered approach to learning at all sympathetically. The idea of exploring literature in order to learn about life precluded the idea of exploring life in order to learn about literature, I had not been able to realize the audacity of this assumption until I had done a considerable amount of read* Ing in such authors as Holt, Fromm, Montagu, Goodman, Friedenberg, Dennison, Glasser, Mead, Rogers, Moffett, and Postman and Weingartner. So strong was my resistance to the possibility that "intelligence" could reside anywhere but in the brains of the "educated" and that "intelligence" could be gotten from anywhere except an accredited insti­ tution, that I probably would not have benefited much from these readings if it had not been for som concurrent 3 ocial experiences. In conflict with the attitudes and ideas of students and young people whose educational and cultural experiences had led them to a far less optimistic and benign view of the current technological culture and its educational machinery, I began to acquire a perspective on my thinking and behavior which would have been far more comfortable to avoid. My belief that an adequate theory • * • *, * ■ must account for all the available data— -even In the social sciences— and my growing awareness of the inadequacy of the experience base upon which my social and educational think­ ing was founded caused me a great deal of confusion and turmoil. This dissertation grew out of an attempt to put to­ gether the shattered fragments resulting from these con­ flicts. The task of Integrating such diverse thoughts and experiences Into a coherent whole has been exceedingly frustrating and exhausting. It would have been Impossible, however, without having many of the pieces already pre­ assembled by the writings of Rogers, Glasser, Mead, Postman and Weingartner, and Moffett. I would like to thank Professor Bargar whose lec­ tures on the articulation of problems has enabled me to get some semblance of order out of the chaos of my own thinking. This conceptualization has also come to be an integral part of the learning model made explicit in chapter four. Professor Blanke's diligent reading and commenting upon the earlier drafts of the manuscript enabled me to see the sometimes Implicit organization of the material. His skepticism forced me to consider more fully many important aspects of my thinking which would perhaps have been more comfortably suppressed. I would like to thank Professor Bateman for the range of concerns and breadth of vision which his continued questioning evoked in me. His patience with me and his belief in people has better enabled me to adopt similar attitudes toward myself and others. I would also like to thank the graduate and under­ graduate students at The Ohio State University, as well as the Junior high students at Linwood, Roosevelt, and Mohawk Schools in Columbus, Ohio, whose observations and questions did much to make me more aware of the nature and depth of the cultural experience gap between them and myself. Finally, I would like to express gratitude to my wife Kathleen, William Craig, and Kathie Kavanaugh for their assistance in preparing the manuscript. More important, however, is the moral support that they have given me. vii VITA October 20, 1940 Born— Cincinnati, Ohio 1961 . ; . B.A., Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 1961-1967 . English Teacher, Elder High School, Cincinnati, Ohio 1966 .... M.A., Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 1966-1967 . Part-time Instructor, Villa Madonne College, Covington, Kentucky 1967-1968 . NSF Trainee in Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1968-1969 . Research Associate, USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 2133* Contract OE-6-10-107, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1970 . Supervisor of Student Teachers in Project for the Development of an In-Service Teacher Training Program for English in Inner-City Schools, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1970-1971 . Assistant Professor, SUNY, College at Brockport, Brockport, New York FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Education Studies in Psycholinguistics. Professors Drachman and Stampe Studies in Inner-City Education. Professors Bateman and Galloway. viii Studies in Educational Change. Professor Blanke Studies In Educational Research. Professor Bargar TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE .......... ...... ...... ii VITA .............. .... viil LIST OF FIGURES . ............... xii Chapter I. SOME GOALS FOR EDUCATION IN THE 1970'S .... 1 Introduction Problem Solving and the Schools Complex Problem Solving and Its Special Requirements II. SOME INADEQUACIES OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN LANGUAGE ARTS EDUCATION . Ml Introduction Conventional Language Arts Curriculum and Independence, Thougjht, Feeling, Responsibility, and Flexibility Conventional Language Arts Curriculum, "Failure," and "Communication" The Growth of Complex Concepts and Composition, Speech, and Literature III. METHODS OF TEACHING AND COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING . .... ... ... • . 63 Introduction Historical Perspective The Authoritarianism of Directive Methods and the Development of Independence, Thought, Feeling, Responsibility, and Flexibility: Its Effects on Complex Problem Solving x Chapter.