Date of Award:
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
School of Teacher Education and Leadership
Barry M. Franklin
Barry M. Franklin
Ronald W. Evans
Steven P. Camicia
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 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?
Jorgensen, C. Gregg, "Unraveling Conflicting Interpretations: A Reexamination of the 1916 Report on Social Studies" (2010). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 633.
Copyright for this work is retained by the student. If you have any questions regarding the inclusion of this work in the Digital Commons, please email us at .