The purpose of this article is to present the findings of a qualitative content analysis of historical documents related to the teaching of literature. Through a social semiotics framework, we analyzed 10 national standards documents in the field of secondary English. Our analysis details the evolution of the standards paradigm for teaching literature in a secondary English classroom, revealing a steady increase in language that attempts to show more measurable outcomes while slowly losing the language that emphasizes the aesthetic value and pleasure to be found in reading great works. These findings have important implications for how language about teaching literature has evolved and where policy makers and professional leaders have placed emphasis with regard to the purpose of teaching literature in secondary classrooms. More specifically, these findings are intended to reframe the perspective of the standards writers within the reform movement and their treatment of literature in secondary classrooms.
ApplebeeA. N. (1993). Literature in the secondary schools: Studies of curriulum and instruction in the United States. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
2.
ApplebeeA. N. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
3.
BaileyT. (1988). Education and the transformation of markets and technology in the textile industry (Technical Paper No. 2, Conservation of Human Resources Project). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
4.
BenigerJ. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
BohmD. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BohmD. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BurnsL. D. (2012). Standards, policy paradoxes, and the New Literacy Studies: A call to professional political action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 93-97. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00108
8.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
ChristenburyL. (2010). NCTE and the shaping of American literacy education. In LindemannE. (Ed.), Reading the past, writing the future: A century of American literacy education and the National Council of Teachers of English (pp. 1-54). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
10.
ClarkeD. (2010). Descartes: A biography. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Commission on English. (1931). Examining the examination in English: A report to the college entrance examination board. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
DescartesR. (2000). Discourse on method and related writings (ClarkeD. M., Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin. (Original work published 1637)
13.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
14.
DeweyJ. (1960). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York, NY: Capricorn Books. (Original work published 1929)
15.
GraffG.BirkensteinC. (2011). A progressive case for educational standardization: How not to respond to calls for common standards. In HeilandD.RosenthalL. J. (Eds.), Literary Study, Measurement, and the sublime: Disciplinary assessment (pp. 217-226). New York, NY: The Teagle.
16.
GreenmanN. P. (1994). Not all caterpillars become butterflies: Reform and restructuring in educational change. In BormanR. M.GreenmanN. P. (Eds.), Changing American education: Recapturing the past or inventing the future (pp. 3-31). Albany: State University of New York Press.
17.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, England: Edward Arnold.
18.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
19.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.YuanK. (2009). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1384.html
21.
HeilandD. (2011). Approaching the ineffable: Flow, sublimity, and student learning. In HeilandD.RosenthalL. J. (Eds.), Literary study, measurement, and the sublime: Disciplinary assessment (pp. 115-132). New York, NY: The Teagle.
22.
HosicJ. F. (comp.). (1917). Reorganization of English in Secondary Schools (Report by the National Joint Committee on English Representing the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education of the National Education Association and the National Council of Teachers of English, U.S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1917, No. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
MayherJ. (1999). Reflections on standards and standard setting: An insider/outsider perspective on the NCTE/IRA standards. English Education, 31, 106-121.
24.
McConnM.BlaineA. (2018). Literature standards past and present: Driving toward a disappearing horizon. The High School Journal, 101(3), 134-154.
25.
MyersM. (1994). Problems and issues facing the national standards project in English. In CobbN. (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on National Standards in America (pp. 259-270). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
26.
MyersM. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
27.
National Council of Teachers of English. (1989). The English Coalition Conference: Democracy through Language. Urbana, IL: Author.
28.
National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
29.
National Council of Teachers of English Commission on National Interest. (1961). The National interest and the teaching of English. Champaign, IL: Author.
30.
National Council of Teachers of English Commission on the English Curriculum. (1956). The English language arts in the secondary school. New York, NY: Appleton.
31.
National Council of Teachers of English Curriculum Commission. (1935). An experience curriculum in English: A report of the curriculum commission of the National Council of Teachers of English. New York, NY: Appleton.
32.
National Education Association Committee of Ten. (1894). Report of the committee of ten on secondary school studies, with the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee. New York, NY: American Book.
33.
National Education Association Committee on College Entrance Requirements. (1899). Report of committee on college entrance requirements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/
35.
NewtonI. (1999). The principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (CohenI. B.WhitmanA., Trans.). Oakland: University of California Press. (Original work published 1687)
36.
OlsonD. (1986). Learning to mean what you say: Toward a psychology of literacy. In de CastellS.LukeA.EganK. (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling: A reader (pp. 145-158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
PolikoffM. S. (2017). Is the Common Core “working”? And where does Common Core research go from here?AERA Open, 3, 1-6.
38.
RivesA.OlsenA. W. (2015). Where’s the rhetoric?Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 161-170.
39.
RosenblattL. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.
40.
SchreierM. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London, England: SAGE.
StedmanL.KaestleC. (1987). Literacy and reading performance in the United States, from 1800 to the present. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 8-46.
43.
TremmelR. (2006). Changing the way we think in English education: A conversation in the universal barbershop. English Education, 39, 10-45.
44.
TumanM. (1987). A preface to literacy: An enquiry into pedagogy, practice, and progress. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
45.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
WhitmanD. (2015). The surprising roots of the Common Core: How conservatives gave rise to “Obamacore”. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy.
48.
YagelskiR. P. (2005). Stasis and change: English education and the crisis of sustainability. English Education, 37, 262-271.
