THE ROLE CONFLICT OF THE STATION EDUCATION OFFICER

This article was written by Flight Lieutenant Andrew William Panton, M.A., Dip.Ed., R.A.F., in June 1974, when he was an officer in the Education and Training Squadron at RAF Lyneham, Chippenham, Wilts. The article was submitted for publication in the RAF Education Bulletin, but was not considered suitable for this,  because of the controversial nature of its content. This article built on, and applied to the context of adult education on RAF stations, the concepts and issues previously developed in the same author's article, "Role Conflict in Educational Organisations", written a little earlier in 1974 and published on this blog on 4th December 2012. 

INTRODUCTION

A "role" is the pattern of behaviour expected of a person who fills a particular position in an organisation; it relates to the position rather than to the occupier, and certain social norms underlie it. The concept of role is important to all educational institutions as it is an essential factor in the analysis of the behaviour of individuals within organisations. Not only is the individual's role conception one of the main determinants of his performance of that role, but the behaviour of others towards the occupant of a particular role depends on their expectations of how he will perform it. Role behaviour is the consequence of tremendously conflicting pressures on the role occupant, and these pressures lead to stresses and strains which contribute to inconsistencies and variations in performance. Role conflict is particularly likely to attach itself to roles where there is a high commitment to other people; as teachers are generally so committed it is particularly important for there to be a thorough appreciation in educational organisations of the source of role conflict. 

The central feature of all role conflict is incompatibility. In his book, "Role Conflict and the Teacher" (1969), Gerald R. Grace writes that " ... role conflict, role strain or role stress are all concerned with problems for the individual which arise as as the result of role incompatibilities". These conflicts appear in different forms: conflicting pressures from different groups; ambiguity in role prescription when jobs are new; conflict between role demands and personality needs; and the performance of two incompatible roles concurrently. There is, however, a basic distinction between "inter-role" conflicts and "intra-role" conflicts. The former relate to conflicts which arise from simultaneous performance of contradictory roles, while the latter stem from conflicts and insecurities which arise within a specific role. Potential areas of conflict for the teachers are the culture in which he lives, the organisation in which he works, the clients whom he serves, the "role set" which sends him expectations, and the difference between his own conception of the role and the actual perceptions that he has of it.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the role conflicts of the RAF Station Education Officer (S Ed O), who is employed within the RAF's Further Education and Continuation Training Scheme (FECTS), formerly known as the General Education Scheme (GES). No specific attempt will be made here to describe systematically the S ED O's task, although reference will be made to most aspects of it. Rather, it is intended to show the extent to which his (or her) work is pervaded and undermined by role conflict. The consequence of these role conflicts will then be considered, and finally some suggestions will be made as to how these conflicts can be reduced. 

INTER-ROLE CONFLICTS

In common with all employees, teachers suffer inter-role conflicts: they are husbands and fathers as well as teachers. However, as RAF officers, S Ed Os face sources of conflict that do not confront the schoolteacher or further education lecturer.

Military officer dimension.

All teachers possess a status that separates them from their students, but the S Ed O's status as an officer serves to increase the distance between himself and his students. As an educator of adults the S Ed O faces the need to break down this barrier, but his officer status limits the extent to which he can do this. Like the RAF chaplain, whose role conflicts were the subject of a study by Gordon C.Zahn (1969), the education officer finds that the military officer dimension of his role, and the status that it implies, stands in the way of free and easy intercourse with airmen. That most S Ed Os are able to arrive at a satisfactory compromise with regard to their student relationships does not eradicate the role conflict inherent in this situation.

Station and "secondary" duties.

In April 1972 all education officers working in the FECTS were asked by Headquarters Training Command to fill in a questionnaire on the time they spent on their various tasks, whether educational, quasi-educational, or non-educational. D.J.James, the psychologist who organised the questionnaire, discovered that Station duties were, next to teaching duties, the most time-consuming area of the FECTS officer's activities. Station duties include many specifically military functions: station duty and orderly officer assignments; duty signals officer; serving on courts-martial and boards of enquiry, formal parades, and posts in the unit's NBC defence exercises. James even discovered that the Station Ground Defence Officer at the Depot of the RAF Regiment was an education officer. On top of these duties, for which education officers, like all combatant officers are liable, they are regularly employed in a variety of "secondary duties", the discharge of which are vital to the smooth running of their units, but for which no provision is made on a station's officer establishment. James found that many of these duties were connected with sports, the running of messes and clubs, or with traditional welfare. These duties included Station Careers Advice Officer, running station magazines, organising kindergartens, representing RAF stations on the managing/governing bodies of local schools, and responsibility for a number of cultural activities. In addition almost every woman education officer was Officer Commanding WRAF as a secondary duty. James's research showed that the mean number of secondary duties per education officer was 2.1, and that, strangely, the number of duties increased with rank.  

The "Fixer".

James also found evidence that the education officer is very often cast by airmen in the role of a "fixer". There is a tendency for airmen to avoid the channels officially responsible for their welfare , and to consult someone else who, although having status in the organisation, does not have formal bureaucratic power. The education officer is an obvious man to turn to. As his office is generally next to the Station Recreational Library, he is readily accessible, and almost any personal problem can be presented in the context of education, career counselling, or retirement advice. As the education officer is not officially responsible for the problems of personnel, these can be presented to him in the expectation that he will know who can deal with them, or that he will help to resolve them either by advice or, even, by direct action. James found that some education officers appeared to seek out this "fixing" role, that some accepted it with resignation, but that some emphatically rejected it. The role conflict in this area is clearly apparent.

James concludes that "The Education Officer has become, in fact, a handy device for filling in gaps in the Total Institution of the RAF Station ... This is not only what a Station Commander wants his education officer to do - it is also very definitely what the men want their education officer to do". James also notes the tendency for for formal duties "to fade off into secondary duties and informal duties". Education officers are, doubtless, well equipped for these extraneous tasks. On units where the majority of officers are aircrew or shiftworkers they may appear as obvious candidates for them, while on small stations, where the number of officers is low, the education officer's burden of station duties is likely to be particularly great, even though he may be operating in a "digital", or one-man, post. However, S Ed Os have considerable difficulty in accommodating such a plethora of subsidiary tasks, many of them both important and time-consuming, on top of their educational functions, for, unlike other combatant ground branch officers (e.g. engineering, equipment and supply, air traffic, secretarial and accounting, physical education, catering, provost), the S Ed O does not have a specialist staff of airmen capable of continuing the work of his section in his absence. The diverse demands of station and secondary duties create a serious conflict of loyalties for S Ed Os.

INTRA-ROLE CONFLICTS

So far only those "inter-role" conflicts that arise from the S Ed O's positions as an RAF officer have been considered. However, he is also afflicted by conflicts intrinsic to his role as an education officer as well. These are the "intra-role" conflicts of his position. These sources of role conflict are common to the work of all educators. In his influential article, "The Teacher's Role - a sociological analysis", Bryan R. Wilson (1962) identified six particular sources of intra-role conflict that affect educational organisations:

(i)   the diffuse nature of the teacher's role;

(ii)   the diverse expectations of the "role set";

(iii)   the marginal role of some teachers;

(iv)   inadequate support by the institutional framework;

(v)   the clash between commitment to the role and career orientation; and

(vi)   the divergent values of society.

Wilson's analysis has recently been amplified by the researches of Gerald R. Grace into a number of schools in a midland borough (1972), and Frank Musgrove and Philip H.Taylor (1969) have carried out a valuable survey into the diverse expectations of the teacher's "role set". Otherwise, research in this field in Britain is sparse. Wilson's analysis of intra-role conflict can, however, give us valuable insights into the problems of the S Ed O.    

The diffuse nature of the role.

Of the diffuseness of the teacher's role, Wilson writes that "The role obligation is diffuse, difficult to delimit, and the activities of the role are highly diverse". All teachers are expected to display considerable warmth and affective concern in their relations with their pupils, an affectivity that contrasts sharply with the affective neutrality of other professional men, such as lawyers, doctors and architects, and because the teacher has a moral commitment to his pupils it is very difficult for his services to be specified. The diffuseness that arises can therefore be a potential source of considerable conflict, as, in the absence of any clear demarcation line, the teacher may over-extend himself. As a teacher, the S Ed O is subject to this source of conflict, although one suspects it will not be as sharp as it is for the schoolteacher. However, the role of the teacher is not only diffuse, but is also made up of diverse and sometimes contradictory tasks. In his book, "The Role of the Teacher" (1969), Professor Eric Hoyle sees the three main functions of the teacher in an industrialised society as instruction, socialisation, and evaluation. These diverse obligations are incompatible. The teacher is expected to be a warm personality and a disciplinary agent, a friend and a confidante, and an objective assessor, and the increasingly specialised nature of his instructional tasks makes affective relations harder to achieve.

Although the teaching role of the S Ed O does not involve him in the same degree of diversity as that of the schoolteacher, from whose socialising function he is released, his additional responsibilities more than compensate for this. One of these, the counselling function, has grown considerably in recent years: the S Ed O advises on resettlement matters, and the schooling of the children of RAF personnel, and, although nominally still a secondary duty, the function of Station Careers Advice Officer has increasingly come into the orbit of the FECTS. The S Ed O is also the agent for a large number of educational facilities outside his own Education Centre: these facilities include day-release and evening courses at local colleges of further education; short residential courses at university extra-mural departments; resettlement briefings, interviews and pre-release training courses; and correspondence and language courses. Another of his more recently acquired functions is that of a training officer: not only does he advise on instructional technique and supervise the training of airmen in ground trades, but, in Strike Command, the S Ed O will have increasing responsibilities for advising on the design and implementation of formal training courses. The S Ed O also has extensive administrative responsibilities. Apart from administering his Education Centre and its staff, he has to manage all the activities just mentioned. In addition, he administers an educational and recreational library, and runs examination centres for the GCE, the RAF Education Test, and the Officers' and Airmen's Promotion Examinations. All these responsibilities have to co-exist beside a varied teaching programme, in which the FECTS staff take classes for GCE "O" Level and RAF Education Test examinations. James found that, out of an official working week of 37 hours, S Ed Os spent only 16.5 hours per week on teaching, and this included time spent on marking, lesson preparation and individual tuition, as well as actual classroom teaching. Well over half their working time was spent on non- or quasi-educational functions, while the mean time spent on all Service activities, both formal and informal, was apparently as high as 58 hours. Some S Ed Os find such an implied omnicompetence flattering, and enjoy the variety of work which it entails, but amidst such a remarkable diversity it is inevitable that role conflict must be great. 

The diverse expectations of the "role set".

Because they are almost always perceived, the diverse expectations of the "role set" are perhaps the classic source of role conflict. In his work, the role incumbent interacts with a number of people, both within and without the organisation, with whom he has contacts and to whom he has obligations. These are his "role senders", and they communicate role expectations to him. These role senders include superiors, subordinaenders of tes and colleagues, and, to the extent that their activities impinge on the role incumbent, they artmente referred to as his "role set". The role set of the civilian teacher is diverse: headteacher, colleagues, school governors, the Local Education Authority, the Department of Education and Science, pupils, parents, other educational institutions, and employers are all senders of different expectations which create conflict in the mind of the teacher as to how he should conceive his role. The strain that the conflicting pressures of the role set cause is made worse, according to Wilson, by the diffuseness of the teacher's role:   " ...  the role set of the teacher is especially formidable because the role is diffuse and because everyone in contemporary society has ready opinions about what the teacher does and should do". In addition, the individual teacher's conception of his role and his personality needs are added sources of conflict. The S Ed O shares all these difficulties, and, although his role set differs from that of the civilian teacher, it is nonetheless formidable. The main components of the S Ed O's role set are his students and clients, their squadron and flight commanders, the Station Commander, the Command Education Staff, and other RAF stations. From all of these role senders the S Ed O will probably receive different and conflicting expectations of his role. The officers and airmen of his station who make up his students and clients will demand personal assistance towards the realisation of their own individual plans, be they aimed at promotion, commissioning, or establishment in civilian life. Their squadron and flight commanders may see the work of the Education Centre as a distraction from the main aims of the Station, and some may feel that the FECTS should concentrate exclusively on that education and training which is essential to the Service, rather than that which is only in the interests of the individual. From his Station Commander, the S Ed O may receive strong expectations that centre around the subsidiaries of his task, such as the publication of an attractive Station magazine, producing a play for the Theatre Club, or ensuring that the Station makes a good showing at the RAF Arts, Photography and Handicrafts Exhibition (RAPHEX). From the Command Education Staff, the S Ed O, the S Ed O receives many expectations indirectly. The changing priorities and emphases of the RAF Directorate of Educational Services and the command staffs are rarely directly stated, but they can nevertheless be gleaned from the volume of correspondence on, and interest shown in, certain aspects of his work, and the relative neglect of other areas. Much information of importance is alsiveo passed on by the informal network, which is always at the heart of large organisations. As the work of the Directorate of Educatonal Services and command staffs is largely administrative, it is cations and previous expereince. natural that their interests centre on this aspect of the S Ed O's activities, but there has been much interest recently from these quarters on the fields of trade training and resettlement. The S Ed O will also acquire new expectations of his role by finding out what education officers on other stations are doing. New priorities and methods will be communicated to him, usually informally, and, although he may not adopt them, they will become a further component of his role set. Another vital ingredient of role conflict in this area is the individual S Ed O's self-concept. Does he see himself primarily as a "teacher", a "trainer" or an "administrator"? The answer to this question will largely stem from from the individual's qualifications and previous experience, but the FECTS  abounds with all three types, and where there are a number of S Ed Os on one station there may be considerable differences between them. In this situation the expectations of his colleagues, and particularly of the Senior Education Officer, will have an important influence on the individual S Ed O. All these varying expectations which the S Ed O receives from his role set are likely to be both a source of enormous role conflict and productive of a wide discrepancy between his own role conception and his perception of his actual performance.

Relevant to the question of the S Ed O's self-concept, and more particularly to the way in which it is modified by his qualifications, is the research of Gwyn Harries-Jenkins in to the attitudes of RAF engineer officers. Harries-Jenkins draws a distinction between those professional officers, such as doctors and chaplains, whom he calls "civilians who happen to perform their professional functions within a military environment", and those who are trained within the organisation in predominantly military skills and who find their profession and the organisation almost completely fused in the military environment. The former type he calls "achievement" professionals in that they have achieved professional status prior to joining the organisation, and the latter "ascriptive" professionals in that their professional status has been acquired within the institution and is therefore dependent upon organisational decision. The two types of officer differ markedly as to whether they put military obedience before professional authority, and to allow more exploitation of their expertise. Most officers are expected to share the attitudes of ascriptive professionals, but, where a branch contains large numbers of both types of officer, ambivalent attitudes occur leading to intra-group strain. Harries-Jenkins found that such ambivalence attached particularly to the Engineer Branch, of which full career officers were divided almost equally into both categories of professional. The Education Branch is also awkwardly placed as regards this dichotomy. Although the majority of education officers are achievement professionals, in consequence of obtaining degrees and teaching qualifications before entering the Service, their expertise is applied in the FECTS in a manner more appropriate to officers whose professional status is ascriptive. For the majority of S Ed Os this "professionalisation" may cause considerable role tension.    

The marginal nature of the role.

Another source of role conflict is the marginal role accorded to some teachers within educational organisations. Most role occupants need to feel that their activities are important and central to the organisations in which they work, and anxiety is likely to arise in circumstances where they perceive that their status is only marginal in the eyes of superiors or colleagues. Wilson illustrates this conflict by reference to the teacher of liberal studies in technical colleges, where "his subject is thought of - by colleagues and clients alike - as a trimming, a piece of ministerial whitewash with no significance for the real business of the institution". There are obvious parallels here with the teachers of humanities in RAF colleges and apprentice training schools, but the situation of the S Ed O on RAF units is different. As the S Ed O works for a non-educational organisation, he is always susceptible to the problems of marginality. On an operational unit he provides a supporting service of minor importance to the Station, and, by the nature of his work, will never be directly involved in the Station's operational work. The potential source of role strain for the individual S Ed O is strong. 

Inadequate institutional support.

Allied to the problem of marginality is the role conflict that arises from circumstances in which the role is inadequately supported by the educational framework in which it is performed. Conflict in this fashion can appear if teachers find that the way the organisation treats them clashes with their desired professional image. For some S Ed Os, lack of institutional support for their activities is a source of role conflict. The S Ed O is a professional teacher who takes pride in the organisation of his courses, and the erratic attendance at his classes which are almost inevitably his lot on operational bases, where many of his students are aircrew or shift workers, may seem an affront to his status and expertise. Generally, the S Ed O adapts to this situation by the use of flexible teaching methods such as worksheets, learning packages and programmes, and he rarely attempts to demand the attendance of students. On operational units many sections work around the clock, and it is unrealistic to expect that the regular attendance of their personnel at Education Centre classes will ever assume a very high priority in the minds of squadron and flight commanders. Education officers, accustomed to teaching in the more stable environment of the apprentice training schools, may find that teaching in the FECTS requires a considerable adjustment, and for all S Ed Os the problem of erratic attendance is a constant irritant. The S Ed O's professional status may also be at risk if he perceives that the amount of secondary duties which he receives on a unit implies a lack of appreciation of his educational role or of the time that is reqired to discharge it effectively. In addition, the S Ed O is increasingly working in an atmosphere where the very need of his services is a cost-conscious Air Force is being questioned. Reductions in FECTS' establishments serve to increase the role conflict that comes from institutional insecurity.  

Commitment to the role versus career orientation. 

A serious source of teacher role conflict in Britain today is that which comes from the conflict between commitment to the role and commitment to the career-line. Grace found that this was the most highly rated source of role conflict perceived by teachers. Career orientation cuts across commitment to the role in circumstances in which most teachers accept that commitment to a particular situation is desirable. Unfortunately, it is clear that an individual teacher is judged by his superordinates in terms of his career orientation. Wilson states that "There is an inducement in this situation to make right impressions on the significant people rather than significant impressions on the right people" - the students. It is also perceived that mobility and promotion are closely connected. This conflict, of course, is common not only to educational organisations but to most organisations, and it would be naive not to suppose that the RAF has its share of the "robber barons", the types who change everything and irritate everyone, and then, having asserted themselves at everyone's expense, move on to another post. Squadron Leader F.E.Hartnett in his article on "Innovation Strategies" in "RAF Education Bulletin Number 9" has described eloquently how innovation can be turned to the advantage of the innovator rather than of the organisation. Such innovations serve to bring the innovator to the notice of his superiors, for as Squadron Leader Hartnett writes, "The military system is so organised that that an ambitious officer has to be noticed if he is to succeed". Due to its diversity, the FECTS is a fertile field for innovation, and the S Ed O may be tempted to pursue not those changes that are most necessary, but those that will make the most impact on his superiors. One of the particular difficulties of the S Ed O, or the Senior Education Officer where there is more than one on a unit, is that the officers who report on him are not education officers and are thus unlikely to be able to evaluate his professional work very thoroughly. Accordingly, the the greatest impact may be made through enthusiastic adoption of an important secondary duty. But whatever strategy he adopts to gain recognition, it is likely that the S Ed O will achieve his purpose only at the expense of a more central aspect of his work. A considerable level of role conflict will thus ensue.

Five of the six categories of teachers' intra-role role conflict analysed by Wilson have now been considered and related to the work of the S Ed O in the FECTS. The sixth area of conflict, that which concerns the divergent values of society, scarcely touches the S Ed O, who, as a teacher in the field of adult education, does not have the socialisation function of the schoolteacher, Although the S Ed O is spared the dilemmas that arise from this perhaps most intractable source of teacher role conflict, it is nevertheless evident that his work is seriously affected by the other five categories of intra-role conflict. Furthermore, his position is made more difficult by the inter-role problems that arise from his status as a combatant officer in an armed force. These problems were discussed earlier. The total picture that emerges is thus a very complex one. Work in the FECTS is complicated by a variety of deeply rooted sources of role conflict, and it would appear that the S Ed O is beset by an unusually sharp degree of conflict, owing both to the diversity of these conflicts and to the intensity of them.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ROLE CONFLICT

It may be felt that the above analysis paints too dramatic a picture of the S Ed O's position, and that most E Ed Os continue to work effectively in spite of all these role conflicts. Up to a point this is true. The personalities and Service experience of the majority of education officers enables them to the FECTS' situation and to discharge most of their duties satisfactorily. However, working continuously in circumstances of high role conflict imposes a considerable strain on S Ed Os, strain which is nonetheless great although its cause is not always perceived. Furthermore, this strain is certain to affect the S Ed O's job performance adversely - whatever the individual may think.

The consequences of unresolved role conflict should be fully appreciated by organisations. Such conflict can sometimes be beneficial in that it provides an impetus towards necessary changes, but it is only beneficial if these changes actually occur. Continuing conflict may lead to job dissatisfaction, career dissatisfaction, and a reduction in the individual's role commitment. In addition, role conflict produces tensions and uncertainties commonly associated with inconsistent organisational behaviour. This inconsistency or unpredictability often leads to further tension between and interpersonal strife between incumbents of complementary roles, thereby preventing them from establishing satisfactory role relationships. Inevitably, optimum performance by the role incumbent is inhibited, and leads directly to impaired competence and effectiveness.

Individuals differ according to personality as to which type of strategy they use to resolve situations of role conflict. Most people adapt to incompatible expectations according to some principle of choice that they adopt. Some will adapt to conflict on the grounds of what is more expedient in their career interests; some will decide to base their actions on the grounds of what are the most legitimate moral claims on them, regardless of other factors. Most people steer a middle course, but a compromise is usually only a temporary solution and conflict shortly reappears. An even less satisfactory strategy for resolving role conflict is role retreatism. This can involve either an abandonment of one's commitment to the role or the abandonment of a particular expectation due to failure. The latter may be a beneficial response in a situation where retreat is wise, but all too often role retreatism is a prelude to feelings of pessimism and cynicism, which eventually lead to an abandonment of the role altogether. Most research on the consequences of role conflict has dealt with areas where the conflict has not been resolved. Those who continue to perform a role in circumstances where conflict or ambiguity exist develop dysfunctional ways of coping with the problems. Joking, non-discussion of the problems and ritualistic behaviour are methods which permit role performance with a minimum of actual conflict. All these coping strategies are unsatisfactory as they However, in some circumstances conflict acts as a stimulus to the role occupant in seeking to change or redefine the incompatible situation in which he is placed. J.W.Getzels has written that "certain types of conflict, like certain types of necessity, give rise to productive transformations". It is thus important that the role conflict which is at present inherent in the work of the S Ed O be reduced. Some possible approaches to doing this will now be considered.

STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE ROLE CONFLICT OF THE STATION EDUCATION OFFICER

Recognition of professional status.

There should be a clear understanding on all RAF stations of the general scope of the S Ed O's operations - both for what he is responsible and for what he is not responsible - , and the S Ed O should ensure that this definition should be publicised. This action would help to reduce the level of incompatibility in the expectations of the S Ed O's role set, one of the most potent sources of his role conflict. At the same time role conflict would also be lessened if the S Ed O's burden of extraneous and peripheral duties was radically lightened. Education officers in FECTS' posts should not be liable to secondary duties except on a voluntary basis, and then only if it is clear that their primary educational responsibilities will not be prejudiced. In addition, it can be argued that the counselling parts of the S Ed O's work could be reduced. Resettlement and careers advice do not necessarily have any educational content, and an end to the S Ed O's formal interviewing responsibilities in these areas would free him to concentrate on the more specifically educational aspects of his present work. A narrowing of the S Ed O's brief that focussed his attention on his educational tasks would increase his professional awareness and thereby serve to reduce the conflict which stems from the diversity of the role. Professional employment is also vital in the career interests of individual education officers. Recruited as professional educators, S Ed Os find that they are officers first and teachers second. Yet, in a future where fewer RAF officers will serve to complete full career engagements (i.e. to retire at 55), it is becoming of critical importance to the education officer that his professional status be protected in civilian eyes, and, if this is to be done, he must pursue for the most part educational functions.

The need for a central concept.

Role conflict that is caused by the diversity of tasks could also be significantly be lightened if each S Ed O decided on a central concept around which his work could cohere and on which decisions on objectives and priorities could be based. One such central concept for the S Ed O's work is that of "Planned Career Training", developed by Squadron Leader Neville Shorrick in his article, "The Station Education Labyrinth", published in the "RAF Education Bulletin No. 8". In this article, which is the only comprehensive rationale for the FECTS to be written, Squadron Leader Shorrick demonstrated how a central aspect of his work enables an S Ed O to manage his resources effectively and to order his priorities. Other concepts are also possible, and, if adopted, would entail new emphases and shifts in priorities. The "Two Careers" concept by stressing the importance of civilian qualifications would involve a greater allocation of resources towards resettlement training. Apart from the rationale behind his work, the S Ed O must also decide where he fits into the scheme of things. Whether he sees himself, primarily, as a teacher or as a manager of learning resources will significantly affect his decisions on the allocation of resources. The way in which the S Ed O conceives his work and his own core activity will no doubt be affected by local conditions, such as the needs of the unit's personnel, the size of the FECTS' establishment, and the opportunities available at local colleges of further education. A considerable degree of autonomy is therefore desirable. In deciding on his central concept the S Ed O must balance the needs of the RAF against what he considers to be legitimate demands on his own professional expertise.

More specialisation.

Allied to the need for greater professionalism and a central concept or core of activity is the need perceived by many S Ed Os for more specialisation in their work. The present proliferation of his duties compels the S Ed O to be a "Jack-of-all-trades", an amateur, albeit a gifted one, who dabbles continuously in a variety of educational or quasi-educational activities. On the larger RAF units, where there are a number of S Ed Os, this problem is reduced, as tasks can be shared out and some degree of specialisation is therefore possible, but the S Ed Os in digital posts find the problems of diversity especially severe. For a professionally qualified officer, this situation is profoundly unsatisfactory and will certainly contribute to an increase in role conflict. If, however, the S Ed O can become clear about his function as an officer of a professionally qualified branch and has decided on a central theme for his work, he will now be in a position where he can specialise in certain areas. The S Ed O works in the field of adult education, but yet he is rarely specifically trained for it. An induction course for education officers, which concentrated on the educational needs and difficulties of the adult airman, and which provided the student with the techniques and knowledge required to operate effectively in this field, would further help to give the S Ed O the professional awareness which he needs to combat role conflict. Short courses in other aspects of the S Ed O's work might also be undertaken profitably at a later stage. "Training design", and "Resettlement education", if this is to remain among his responsibilities, are such areas where some background training would assist the S Ed O to feel that he was providing a more professional service.

Greater use of expertise.

One of the sources of role conflict considered earlier is that which stems from the role occupant perceiving that his services are marginal to the organisation. If this source of his role conflict is to be reduced, the S Ed O needs to feel that his work is more closely identified with the central needs of the RAF. At present, much of his expertise is dissipated on fringe activities, and it is important that his skills are put to good use. On some stations the S Ed O already has responsibilities for the design of formal training courses, and this aspect of his work could be extended. In addition, the S Ed O's responsibilities with regard to officers' and airmen's promotion examinations, which at present are scarcely more than administrative, could be widened. Greater responsibility for the the policy of promotion examinations and continuation training would be consistent with the professional expertise of the Education branch, and would reduce in a thoroughly justified manner the feeling of marginality suffered by the S Ed O.

Discussion and research.

The value of discussion must also be emphasised. The airing and frank discussion of problems may by themselves reduce the tensions created by role conflict. S Ed O's would discover that they were not alone in suffering the strains of role conflict. Such discussion would indicate the need for these problems to be resolved and facilitate the introduction of strategies likely to do so. Research can also provide data which is vital if the problems of role conflict are to be abated. The first essential is to receive is to receive more information about the role set. Musgrove and Taylor (1969) discovered that the discrepancy between parents' expectations and teachers' role priorities was much less than teachers perceived. This finding, which is published in their book, "Society and the Teacher's Role", indicates that much unnecessary strain can be caused by misperceptions, and the S Ed O may also be in danger of exaggerating the conflict of expectations. Research is therefore required if S Ed Os are to deal adequately with pressures from their role sets. Questionnaires designed to elicit the expectations of S Ed Os' role sets could be either organised at unit level or, preferably, co-ordinated by MOD and command education staffs. The results of surveys would enable S Ed Os to determine the exact points of conflict, and thereby to tackle most effectively the problems arising from them. At the same time more research is needed to estimate the effects on education officers of changes in the FECTS:

" ... there is a need for 'planned change' in educational organisations which monitors the consequences of innovation not solely in measures of learning achievement or pupil reaction and teacher satisfaction. While it is clear that educational systems do not exist merely to provide teachers with maximum satisfaction - it is equally clear that attempts at innovation which assume that the teacher will 'fit in' with the latest blueprint are doomed to failure. Any serious attempt to introduce change needs to be accompanied by an assessment of probable consequences for the teacher, programmes of reorientation and preparation and on-going monitoring of actual consequences." (Gerald R. Grace, "Role Conflict and the Teacher", 1972) 

In all cases where innovation in his work is planned, the effects on the professional status of the S Ed O must be carefully considered if serious role conflict is to be avoided. The S Ed O is certain to resent any undue exploitation of his expertise.

All of these suggestions for reducing the level of the S Ed O's role conflict involve the need to offset the requirements of the RAF against those of the S Ed O himself. The extent to which these strategies will remain appropriate depends on the future tasking and establishment of the FECTS. However, where these strategies can be applied, they should lead not only to a reduction in the role conflict of the S Ed O but also to a consequent amelioration in the quality and consistency of the service he (or she) provides. 

CONCLUSION

This article has sought to investigate the problem of role conflict in the work of the Station  Education Officer on RAF units. Both the "inter-role" and the "intra-role" conflicts of the S Ed O have been analysed, and an attempt has been made to show how seriously these conflicts pervade his work. The consequence is that the effectiveness of his work is inevitably attenuated. It is the major contention of this article that there is an inadequate appreciation in the RAF of the nature of the problem of role conflict, or of the strain which it imposes on the day-to-day working of the S Ed O. It is essential that the problem should be appreciated however, because role conflict in the S Ed O's work have been considered, all of which involve a concern for his professional status. These role conflicts are largely the consequence of changes in the S Ed O's working environment, and, as this environment will continue to change, they can never be ultimately be resolved. However, the adoption of strategies that balance the personal and professional needs of the S Ed O against the the education and training needs of the Royal Air Force should ensure that such conflicts are not only held in check, but also that they are the dynamic through which the facilities provided by the FECTS are refined by necessary educational and organisational changes.



                                         BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grace, G.R.             "Society and the Teacher's Role", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

                                "Role Conflict and the Teacher", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972.

Harries-Jenkins, G.   "Professionals and Professionalization", in "Professionals in Organisations", edited by                                                                                                        
                                  J.A. Jackson, Cambridge University Press, 1970.

                               "Dysfunctional Consequences of Military Professionalization", in "On Military Ideology",
                                edited by Morris Janowitz and J.van Doorn, University of Rotterdam University, 1971.

Hartnett, Squadron   "Innovation Strategies", in "RAF Education Bulletin, No.9", 1972.
Leader F.E.

Hoyle E.                   "The Role of the Teacher", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.

James, D.J.               "Total Institutions", (work in course of preparation for publication), 1972.

Musgrove, F. and     "Society and the Teacher's Role", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
Taylor, P.H.
      
Owens, R.G.            "Organizational Behaviour in Schools", Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Shorrick, Squadron   "The Station Education Labyrinth", in "RAF Education Bulletin, No.8",
Leader N.                   1971.

Wilson, B.R.             "The Teacher's Role - a sociological analysis", in Br. J.of Sociology, 13 (i), 1962.

Zahn, G.C.                "Chaplains in the RAF- a study in role tension", Manchester University Press, 1969.


                                                                                                                                       

Postscript.

Looking back on the circumstances in which the above article was written, with the hindsight of almost forty years, the author feels that certain observations are appropriate. While the presence of role conflict in the work of a RAF education officer providing adult education on Air Force stations at that time (i.e. the early 1970s) was certainly a genuine phenomenon, the difficulties which this caused were significantly ameliorated by the very well organised and well resourced environment in which he or she was working, and it is also fair to say that, while the diversity of tasks which the job involved was, as the article indicates, a source of role conflict, it was also one of the attractions of the job, and, to that extent, the conflict was partly self-induced by the role incumbents. It is also fair to point out too that, at the time when the article was written, the writing was on the wall not only for the Further Education and Continuation Training Scheme (FECTS) but also for the separate status of the Education Branch as a whole. The decision to replace the RAF officer cadet schemes at the RAF Colleges of Cranwell and Henlow by a policy of university graduate entry in 1972, and the enforced abbreviation of the apprentice training schemes, consequent upon the raising of the school-leaving age (ROSLA) from fifteen to sixteen in 1973-74, significantly reduced the the need and the opportunities for regular teaching work within the Force. Furthermore, the steady improvement in the educational standards and qualifications of airmen, both aircrew and those in ground trades, which was already evident in 1974, and which the ROSLA was of course bound to accelerate, was reducing the need  on RAF units for the very type of facilities which the FECTS existed to provide. In these circumstances, it is clearer to the author now than it was perhaps then that the additional tasking of functions such as continuation training and resettlement counselling handed to the S Ed O from above stemmed from the desperate attempts of MOD and command HQ education staff to justify the continuing existence of the FECTS, and the Education Branch itself. Sadly, if inevitably perhaps, these attempts were to prove unavailing. Within a few years, the FECTS in the form which the author of the above article knew, and in which he had worked so happily, had come to an end and the Education Branch itself was subsumed within a wider "Administrative Branch".  In this context, it should thus be emphasised that the extent of role conflict that may exist within an organisation at any time is also likely to result from evolving changes to the structural environment in which that role is being performed.

THE INSIGHT MODEL OF TEACHING

The thesis published below was written by Flying Officer Andrew William Panton, B.A., Dip.Ed. R.A.F,  while he was a student on the Royal Air Force Education Officers' Orientation Course at the RAF School of Education, RAF Upwood, Hunts. in 1971. This thesis develops the pedagogical aspects of the article already published on this blog on 27 February 2010, entitled "The Platonic Doctrine of Recollection and the Insight Model of Teaching", which he had written in June 1968 while he was a Dip.Ed. student at Oxford University. Apart from exploring the value of exciting new teaching techniques which were in vogue at this time, the author is expressing strong reservations about the RAF School of Education's apparent insistence that all lessons should involve oral questioning as the main focus of teaching.

                                                                                                                


Introduction.

A "model of teaching" is not a concrete affair, nor is it a set of rules for teachers. It is a philosophical model and so exists only in an abstract sense. Philosophical models simplify, but such simplification is a legitimate way of highlighting the important features of a subject. A model of teaching helps to answer those critical questions which a definition of teaching will always fail to supply: what kind of learning are we aiming at? what does learning consist of? how shall we achieve learning? A definition merely describes the process of teaching; a model orientates it by providing answers to those questions mentioned just previously. Such questions are of vital significance to teachers; indeed they give pith to the whole educational enterprise.                

The best way in which the Insight Model can be described is to compare it with another influential model, the Instruction Model, which is, strictly speaking, a verbal variant of the Impression Model of teaching,  associated with the empiricist school of John Locke. It can be maintained that all teaching converges around these two models, the Instruction and the Insight Models, or variants of them.

The Instruction Model of Teaching.

When we hear the word "schoolmaster" what kind of picture springs to our minds? Times are changing and we may arrive at different pictures, but we can be fairly sure what our grandparents would see, if asked the same question. They would visualise a browbeating, hectoring, merciless character, such as Mr. Quelch, the constant persecutor of the wretched Billy Bunter. Beyond this public stereotype of the schoolmaster lie certain presuppositions with which we are concerned. These can be illustrated by a short quotation from chapter one of "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens. The speaker is Mr. Gradgrind:

" 'In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir - nothing but Facts!'

The speaker and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim."

This passage bring out two features of the Instruction Model which are central to our purpose. Firstly, we find the emphasis on facts as the raw material of education and the principle concern of the teacher. We may think that this view is no longer held by many people today, but bear in mind that only forty years ago the Hadow Report described the material of teaching as "knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored". Even though most teachers would reject this conception of their work, how often do lessons belie this conviction. The second part of the passage which comes to our notice is Dickens' description of the pupils as "little vessels ... ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim". This is highly reminiscent of Locke's conception of the mind as a "tabula rasa", as "white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas".

The Instruction Model is closely akin to behaviourism. Facts and accepted theory (the independent variables) are fed into the mind, and knowledge is an accumulation of such statements. The efficiency of the process can be tested by feedback (the dependent variables) to see how much has been learnt. The implications of this view of teaching are firstly that the teacher should be concerned with the exercising of mental powers engaged in receiving and processing data, and secondly and crucially that he should strive for the most appropriate input. For on this view, the mind of the pupil can largely be shaped by the stimuli provided by the teacher.  

Instruction makes good sense where the learning of a skill is involved, and a great many educational tasks are of this nature, but when we pass on to other kinds of knowledge, involving subjects such as mathematics, science and history, subjects concerned with the mastery of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal, the Instruction Model is inadequate. These subjects are not mere collections of information, and cannot be effectively taught as such. To store all accepted theories in the mind is not the same as being able to apply them in context. Learning theorems rote-style does not enable one to solve a geometrical rider. Finally and most crucially, the Instruction Model makes inadequate provision for originality by the learner. If the response of the learner depends only on what he has acquired through sensory experience, how is it ever possible for him to be original? Yet innovation by the pupil is a fact with which all teachers are familiar. Indeed such originality is eagerly anticipated.

The Instruction Model of Teaching can be summarised in the following diagrammatic form: -


The Instruction Model of Teaching:

Knowledge is directly imparted

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE -------------Processed by --------->----------------- THE TEACHER
                                                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                                                 i
NEW KNOWLEDGE ----------------Passively acquires ------<-----------------THE PUPIL
                i
                i
                i ??                                                                                                        
                i                                                                                            
APPLICATION---------------------Cannot lead to ---------------------------------INNOVATION


The Insight Model of Teaching.

The approach of the model is radically different. The relationship between teacher pupil and the subject is conceived of in a new way. The task of the teacher is to prompt and stimulate his pupils to realise for themselves the knowledge that is in their own minds. For according to this model, all knowledge apart from the acquisition of unstructured factual information or skill-training is a matter of insight or internal vision. It is the occurrence of vision in the mind of the learner that makes the crucial difference between being able to store and reproduce knowledge and the ability to understand its application in practice. For the pupil has acquired new knowledge actively for himself, though indirectly through the agency of the teacher. Thus, in the Insight Model the teacher retreats a step, or at least appears to do so. While "instruction" is a task word and puts the emphasis on the teacher, "insight" is an achievement word and puts the emphasis on the pupil. The Insight Model is thus pupil-centred through its very structure. Accordingly, the teacher and the pupils carry out an insightful search for reality, the purpose of which is not to impress facts on to the sudent's mind but to assist him in his own search for truth. Furthermore, this model of teaching is directly concerned with the need to apply learning to new situations in the future, the problem of applying knowledge. Having applied knowledge by a personal engagement, the student is much more likely to appreciate the particular fit which his theories will have with real circumstances than he would be if these theories had been acquired passively. This brings us to a qualitative point about knowledge.

The Insight Model stresses that the mere receipt of true information cannot be real knowledge. For knowledge requires the student to have earned the right, through his own effort, to an assurance of its truth. This is the classic Platonic distinction between knowledge (episteme) and belief (pistis). Indeed, it is in the writings of Plato that we find perhaps the most vivid description of the Insight Model. In the "Theaetetus", Plato's mentor Socrates, who acts as his mouthpiece in almost all his dialogues, likens his function as a teacher to that of a midwife. Socrates asserts that he seeks to deliver from the mind thoughts which are as yet imperfectly formulated:

"My art of midwifery is in general like theirs, the only difference being that my patients are men not women, and my concern is not with the body but with the soul that is in travail of birth. And the highest point of my art is the power to prove by every test whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or instinct with life and truth.

"Those who frequent my company at first appear some of them quite unintelligent, but as we go further with our discussions, all who are favoured by heaven make progress at a rate that seems quite surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear they have never learned anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine."

Socrates is the first historical source of the Insight Model, and was the first man known to us to use a refined question and answer technique as a teaching method. This brings us to the first major application of the Insight Model - the use of oral questioning.

Oral Questioning.

A list of the purposes of oral questioning is laid out on Page 2 of the RAF School of Education's "Oral Questions Programmes". These are the four headings: -

             a.  To promote mental activity
             b.  To arouse and maintain student activity        
             c.  To guide thought
             d.  To evaluate learning.

Of the four headings, the third one concerned with the guiding of thought is fundamental to our purpose. The other three, which deal respectively with retention and recapitulation, motivation and evaluation, are valid in their way, though it must be strongly doubted whether they have the blanket all-embracing application which some claim for them. Our primary concern here is to consider the possible merit of learning by oral questioning from the point of view of the knowledge gained from it. Is it superior to knowledge gained by formal instruction? This is a question of the quality or status of knowledge.

The "Oral Questions Programme" states that "By using questions it is possible to direct a student's thinking through to a logical solution - a definite sequence of performance or an objective." As the Programme suggests, oral questioning is a method of structuring knowledge, a means of tying the elements of a pupil's experience into  a particular cognitive pattern or configuration (Gestalt). This method of teaching is appropriate, and indeed essential, in those subjects where acquisition of concepts, principles and criteria of appraisal are the objects of study. The educational point needs to be made first of all that the only justification of teaching these subjects to students is that it involves them in valuable mental exercise. If student-thought is the objective of teaching, then a direct imparting of information is quite inappropriate. The fact that many mediocre students prefer to learn information by rote rather than to think for themselves ought not to disguise this essential point. For the teacher to do all the thinking, and then to present the answers for his pupils to learn, is a travesty of an educational process. It is absolutely essential to make students think for themselves, as otherwise an educational course is as valueless as will be the qualification gained at its close. Oral questioning is probably the most efficient way in terms of time, and effective way in terms of the quality of knowledge gained, of doing this, and this leads us to the crucial point about the value of oral questioning as a means of insight learning.

This point concerns the structuring of material or experience by teacher in such a way that insightful learning occurs. By asking the right questions in the right sequence, the teacher can control the structure of the learning process, while still leaving many important truths to be discovered by the student. If students have truly grappled with problems by themselves, then the possibility of their applying their knowledge in practical situations and to use it to make original contributions of their own is greatly enhanced; and, if this is so, it says something about the quality of the knowledge acquired. A student who has an operational mastery of the conception and principles he has acquired obviously possesses a more fundamental and real knowledge than one who can merely retain and reproduce data fed into him. Furthermore, in a democratic society is it not in itself desirable that a student should gain by his own efforts the assurance of the truth of a proposition? Instruction in subjects like science or history is little better than straight indoctrination, though it lacks the same unpleasant implications.

The technique of oral questioning is to be greatly valued and ought to be an important part of the teacher's repertoire. Still, we should hesitate to give it blanket application that devotees of insight-teaching may claim. Oral questioning is more fundamental to the teaching of some subjects than others. The way in which it can be applied, and whether it is appropriate at a given moment, depends on not just the subject under study but also on a thousand and one other factors, too numerous to be mentioned here. To be dogmatic about the exclusive use of anyone teaching method is to be intellectually absurd. An all-encompassing choice between verbal instruction and oral questioning need never be made. The sensitive teacher will make his own decisions as to what a particular learning situation requires in the light of all its special circumstances. After all, to vary what one does is part of what it means to be intelligent, and variety as a principle of teaching method cannot be overemphasised.

So far it must appear that oral questioning has been equated with the Insight Model. In fact, eliciting responses by means of oral questions is only one application of the Model. What is distinctive of insight-teaching as opposed to straight instruction is that it guides students in finding out knowledge rather than directly imparting it. Linguistic means other than questioning can be used to help to do this. Subtle methods, such as hinting, commenting, provoking, and the famous Socratic profession of ignorance ("aporia") are all ancillary means to achieving the same end. But these do not exhaust the possibilities of the Insight Model. Its other main area of interest to the educator is that of "discovery methods", to which is closely allied to the concept of learning through "role-playing".

Discovery Methods of Teaching.

Some extraordinary claims as to the merits of discovery methods have been made, though experimental evidence to back them is often very thin. Confusion about discovery methods abounds, and begins with the proleptic use of the word "discovery". If discovery occurs, this may well be a thrilling and motivating experience, but what if it does not occur? We should not delude ourselves into letting the "word" discovery allow us to prejudge the effectiveness of the method.

Other muddles are also possible. The discovery method can either be applied rigidly, that is the learner is given no verbal assistance at all by the teacher, or a more compromising method can be used in which the teacher can makes his appearance at certain times to assist the floundering student. According to the first and more doctrinaire version of the theory, the teacher presents materials or contrives situations which are so structured that the appropriate learning results. This method of discovery by planned experience has been  more applicable to the teaching of young children than others: the use of Dienes' blocks and Cuisenaire rods in Montessori nursery schools is well known. The flaw in this method is the erroneous assumption that the child will somehow manage to conceive of the structured material in the same way as the teacher, when this is patently unlikely. Recently in fact, the whole basis of Dienes' abstractionist theory has been shown to be invalid, but that is not to say that the conceptual apparatus which he used is valueless - only that the claims he made for it were unrealistic.

There is, however, another conception of discovery method, which has greater possibilities. This is the method of "Problem Solving". Here the teacher is no longer a hovering provider of apparatus or the structurer of an environment from which concepts are meant to be abstracted in the course of uncontrolled activity. According to this idea, the teacher questions, suggests, hints, and sometimes instructs what to do to find out. But it is not instruction, because what has actually to be learned is not imparted. The emphasis is still on the achievement of learning by the pupil, so that although what the teacher says is specific enough to focus attention in the desired direction, the opportunity of real discoveries being made is left, discoveries which the teacher has good reason to think will occur in the light of past experience and present guidance. This method resembles instruction, in that it necessitates the active verbal participation of the teacher, but the more rigorous type of discovery method, involving emphasis on the pupil's carrying out practical examples, still remains an important element of it.

Of course, this Problem Solving is not suitable for every educational situation. But it has some application to most subjects of the school curriculum. Although there is insufficient time to look at individual subjects, a master-plan is set out below which can be roughly applied to any case of Insight Learning into Problems. A unit of instruction could be structured around the following five stages:

1.  Problem - new difficulty, pose new problem and let class try to settle it.

2.  Analysis - analyse data, both new and old material. Use various methods - question and answer, set        reading, films, pictures.

3.  Hypothesis - (critical stage) Relation between old and new material perceived - guess at answer. Arrange material into meaningful pattern. Problem solved temporarily.

4.  Theory - test hypothesis against data by going over it again. Pupils work examples, plan essay with aid of teacher.

5.  Application - pupils demonstrate operational mastery by working out examples or writing essay.

If the pupils fail, the teacher has failed and he is back to square one. There is an increased chanciness in discovery method learning since by its very nature it leaves open the opportunity for not discovering. But this drawback is offset by the many advantages which this method has. Much has been said on the merits of discovery learning from the viewpoint of improved motivation and better learning. Indeed, this is the point usually made in its support. Once again, however, the factual basis for this claim is a little doubtful, and some psychologists are openly suspicious of it. Two points arise: the need to stress the importance of variety in any question of motivation; and the fact that it would be too time-consuming for everything to be done according to discovery methods. Furthermore, if discovery methods are really to lead to improved motivation, it appears that there has to be an intrinsic challenge in the nature of the work being undertaken, and that, when dealing with adults on a career-orientated course, one has every right to pre-suppose that a sufficient level of motivation exists already. But, in general, a connection between discovery methods and motivation does seem likely.

Now, another way in which learning by discovery is thought to have value is that it teaches pupils to learn how to learn. This idea stems from Harlow's experiments with monkeys, which demonstrated that learning by discovery seems to form general heuristic principles, which enable one to tackle new and even unrelated problems with a greater chance of success. This is a sort of variant on the concept of "transfer of training", and implies a rejection of "stimulus-response" theory. The trouble here is that there seems to be no logical way in which it can be shown how solving one problem can help to form principles to solve an entirely different one. Furthermore, if the existence of such principles could be proven, there is no reason why they should not be the subject of instruction.

Once again, as in all cases involving the Insight Model, the real advantage lies in the quality of the knowledge gained and the operational mastery, in terms of application and innovation, that it provides. But the discovery method has one particular advantage which should be emphasised. The pupil under direct instruction is in a passive or receptive role that requires that the pace and sequence of learning are always determined by someone else. Educationally, this is very inefficient. Like programmed learning, discovery learning allows more room for individual differences; furthermore, it permits a more intelligent appreciation of what one is doing than other methods. The associated concept of  "role-playing" is designed to enable the student to encounter at first hand the type of problems which he will encounter in the future. Role-playing is particularly applicable to courses where a definite professional training is the objective, but it also has exciting possibilities in the teaching of liberal studies or PSHE (i.e. Personal, Social and Health Education), where learning situations are loosely structured, and in circumstances where the principal educational objectives are in the "affective domain" and where the intention is to induce an "empathetic" response from the student. Also, discovery methods may well be suited to "continuous flow" training, since the pace of individual progess is easily discernible. Those students responding most successfully will need less guidance and less time than the others to make the requisite discoveries. All in all, it does seem that, despite the objections which can legitimately be raised to rash claims about the virtues of discovery learning, that there really is a possibility here of a generic superiority of this type of learning over the more traditional and more formal methods associated with instruction.

Conclusion.

The applications of the Insight Model are enormous and should be used wherever practicable. Where and when such practicable situations arise depend on so many factors that it is well-nigh impossible to legislate for them. The individual teacher or supervisor is the person best qualified to judge, but that is not to say that he should do so on the basis of his intuition alone. Learning situations can be analysed on the basis of the four purposes of oral questioning highlighted earlier, and in the light of those critical questions  to which models of teaching provide answers. It must also be remembered that the teacher is rarely faced by questions of absolute value. When he or she considers the use of discovery methods or other types of insight teaching, the value of these methods must be related to other important considerations, such as problems of cost-effectiveness and problems of resources in general, including the time available. In fact, only a relative scale of appropriateness will be of much use to the teacher in making judgments as to teaching methods. Thus, in some situations discovery methods will be considered more essential than in others, e.g. science practicals. At present, old fashioned syllabi and examinations make a large scale application of insight methods difficult, and we must hope for some educational reforms in such areas.

Each individual teaching situation is different from any other. In all questions concerning teaching methods a broad-minded attitude is therefore desirable. The method of "problem solving" is really a compromise between instruction and the discovery method, inasmuch as it incorporates all the advantages of the Insight Model while still being sufficiently flexible to use any other method where appropriate. However, the realisation that words alone cannot convey knowledge is fundamental to a sound teaching technique. For knowledge can never be simply the storing of new information given by the teacher. Knowing in the true sense requires the opportunity to assimilate information by working it out for oneself. The Insight Model stands as a warning that teaching will always be more than a verbal transmission of information from teacher to pupil.

Diagrammatic summary of the Insight Model of Teaching:

Knowledge is actively acquired.

                                                       THE TEACHER
                                                                    i
                                                                    i
                                                                Guides
                                                                    i
                                                                    i
THE PUPIL--------------------insightful enquiry into --------------------- PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                                           Student acquires      
                                                                                                                                    i                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                    i
APPLICATION ----------------------capable of ----------------------------- NEW KNOWLEDGE                                                                                                                      
          i
          i
          i
          i---------- may lead to ---------- INNOVATION

METHOD ESSAY: HISTORY

This essay was submitted to the University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies by Andrew William Panton, B.A. (in residence at Pembroke College) in May 1968 in part-fulfilment of the course requirements leading to the award of the University's Diploma in Education.


I.  THE AIMS OF HISTORY TEACHING

The task that confronts every school teacher has two sides to it. The teacher, irrespective of the subject he teaches, has constantly to bear these in mind. Firstly, he must consider the subject which he is teaching, and, secondly, the pupils whom he is teaching. Thus teaching involves a threefold relationship between teacher, subject, and pupil. The function of the teacher has been seen as a bridge between the pupil and what he seeks to learn. One might go further and say that the teacher is a catalysing agent that fuses two elements into a dynamic working relationship. The teacher should strive to maintain a balance between his responsibilities to both subject and pupil, although as an educationalist the latter responsibility is the more weighty of the two.

Having made this fundamental point concerning the nature of the teaching problem, we must now consider the aims of teaching history. To do this, we must first make clear what we aim to do in any educational process. A satisfactory definition of an educative process is most elusive and seemingly impossible to render in epigrammatic form. R.S.Peters' description of it as a process of initiation into respectable modes of thought is useful, but leaves much unsaid. Education is more than the receipt of the skills of particular academic disciplines: it should have some higher cultural purpose, to which all these disciplines should be able to contribute. A.N.Whitehead has described this cultural purpose of education as "activity of thought and receptiveness to beauty and human feelings".

This, then, is the basic educational framework into which we must fit the aims of our subject. Now we must consider what it is we are teaching when we teach history. Where does history start and where does it end? Is history exclusively a study of the past, or should it be a constant dialogue between past and present? These and many others are the questions which the history teacher must always be asking. But let us first investigate what the academic discipline of history consists of.

Most of us would agree that history is the study of past human actions and activity. But what is really at issue is not so much what we are to look at, but how we are to look at it. W.H.Burston finds three basic characteristics that typify the study of history. Firstly, the historical events that we study cannot be observed, for the vital part of the events are the motives which caused them. Secondly, history is an independent body of knowledge obtained by scholarly methods of research, and as such is studied in detachment. Finally, a historian is especially concerned with the uniqueness of each event. If we accept Burston's characteristics of historical study - I personally find them very convincing - we must now consider their implications on the aims of the history teacher.

Let us begin with the first one: that historical events cannot be observed. The motives and intentions and purposes behind them can only be inferred from the historical evidence available, Thus history is a subject studied in a way geography and science are not, and teachers cannot present it in a way similar to the teachers of those subjects.

The implications of our second characteristic, that history should be studied in detachment, lead us to more controversial conclusions. Detachment is a word little to the liking of history teachers, and, as Burston has said, "to demand a completely detached attitude to the past is surely to invite not merely a disinterested attitude, but an uninterested one as well". But it must remain the duty of the history teacher not to encourage partisan attitudes to the study of history. This is a hard enough task in the study of any period, but almost impossible in the study of the contemporary world, where factors of personal interest and group loyalty affect our thinking to a far greater degree. Thus history teachers would be well advised not to go beyond 1870 in their studies. No one could sensibly argue that contemporary society should not be studied, but it does not seem that it can be well adapted to a historical study at school-level.

One reason given for the teaching of contemporary history at school is that appears more relevant to the everyday life of pupils, and thus it engages their interest more readily. Similar motives have led history teachers to teach what Professor M.J.Oakeshott has called "the practical past". This approach is directly contrary to our third characteristic, that history is concerned with the uniqueness of events, that is, the peculiar set of circumstances that have led to them. Here it differs from sociology, which, though also interested in the past, attempts to classify events, to stress not their unique aspects, but to explain them in terms of general laws. Such a study entails reading history backwards, extrapolating certain aspects of events, isolating them and using them in support of theories deriving from contemporary circumstances. Such a study is a legitimate one, but it is not an historical one. Yet, studying the past for its practical effects on the present is just such a study.

The history teacher should be careful to distinguish between this "practical past" and the historical past. It cannot be wrong that pupils of the present should wish to trace the origin of some contemporary problem in the past in the past, but they should do so under the appropriate banner. It seems likely that sociology and economics will have big futures as school subjects. Both are better equipped than history to carry on this dialogue between past and present. It cannot be the duty of history teachers to disregard the traditions of their discipline in the face of of pressure to teach material that cannot be dealt with in a historical manner. By distorting the nature of his subject, the history teacher can do good neither to it nor to his pupils. If history is a subject worthy of study at school, then it must stand or fall according to its merits, What these merits are, let us now consider.

The particular merits of history as a school subject are of course directly related to the aims of the teacher. It is to give our pupils the benefits of these merits that we teach history, and we justify the place of history in the school curriculum for the same reason. What history has to offer boys and girls can profitably be divided into two sections. The first I would call, for want of a more concise term, "the imaginative-experiential motive", and this is applicable to pre-"O" Level children. The second, what I would call "intellectual motive" comes later. But what is it about history that children like?

To children the only way in which the study of history can be justified is on grounds of interest. They cannot appreciate our deeper motives. Thus, it is a clear duty of the history teacher to satisfy curiosity about the past. Many children have have an instinctive interest in the past, and no particular appeal has to be made to them. Others, however, have to have their interest in the past kindled and then stimulated. It is the first and most obvious task of the history teacher to arouse and then maintain such an interest. A direct appeal to the children's imagination is the surest way to do this. To go further, the imaginative stimulus that history can afford to young minds is the main justification of history as a pre-"O" Level subject. Of course, history can claim no monopoly in stimulating the imagination of the young, but it can do this in the social context. To understand the problems, and to study the living conditions of our ancestors, is to widen the experience and exercise the imagination. To succeed in doing this, a quantity of sympathetic imagination is necessary, a humility about one's environment and a willingness to enter into a new experience. Children can do these things with less difficulty, perhaps, than adults, having fewer preconceptions than their elders. Project methods lend themselves particularly well to such experiential aims. History presented in such a way is a moral education in the widest sense. It is not escapism, unless all exercise of the imagination is this. Still less is it irrelevant to the problems of modern life. Anyone who has studied the problems of other societies can confront those of hos own with greater stature.

As the pupils grow older, the intellectual aspects of history should become most important. History, like all other academic disciplines, provides a valuable programme of mental training. From "O" Level onwards, the teacher should be primarily concerned with this programme. The study of history teaches students to arrange and select material, to develop a critical sense in the evaluation of sources, to produce coherent and cogent arguments and to form reasoned conclusions. Thus, the history teacher should be careful to stress that the technique of essay-writing consists not in cataloguing historical information, but in the production of a well-balanced argument, answering a question which has been thoroughly considered. History taught in this way helps to train the mind in one of the most practical and valuable directions that education can provide.

To stimulate the imagination, widen the experience, and train the mind, these should all be the aims of the history teacher. But history should always have an underlying moral purpose. For it is the study of mankind, and any study of mankind, and and study of mankind, short of the strictly biological, must have such an underlying purpose. But the moral aspect of history is concerned with the searching out of the motives behind  individual human actions, and it is not the function of the historian to subject these actions to some moral code. Whig history, though discredited intellectually, still exerts a strong influence over classroom practice. That this is so is to some extent due to the methodological difficulties of presenting the subject in an apparently relevant manner, but history teachers should never plan their lessons to demonstrate the truth of  any particular moral principles.

Butterfield's contention that moral judgments must be kept out of history is, as Isaiah Berlin has pointed out,  unrealistic if history is to be written in everyday language, but he is surely correct in his view that moral judgments can never play a major part in the historian work. To give them a prominent place in history teaching takes one into an atmosphere of pseudo-morality, where sententiousness competes with glibness, hypocrisy with naivety. And, as Butterfield points out, " ... in the world of pseudo-moral judgments there is a general tendency on the one hand to avoid the higher regions of moral reflection and on the other hand to make moral issues out of what are not really moral issues at all". This is not to say that moral judgments have no right to intrude themselves into our study of history. No one can study historical events without having some feelings as to the propriety of some of them. But these views will be intensely subjective, and for this reason can never become part of the mainstream of historical narrative. Moral questions can become a valuable incidental to the study of history, but the teacher should be careful to encourage an atmosphere of humility in this field. For morality can never be taught, but a responsible attitude towards it can be fostered.

No discussion of history teaching and its aims can be concluded without a word about examinations. Here the teacher becomes brutally aware of his dual responsibilities to pupil and subject. Should he ensure his pupils' success in examinations at the cost of doing violence to the aims of his discipline? This is a question that must confront every teacher. It is not, however, an honest dilemma, for, if an examination pass is not complemented by a parallel educational benefit, it is not worth having. The good of the pupil and the subject must be sought simultaneously. The good of neither will be served without that of the other.

II.  PROPOSED HISTORY SYLLABUS FOR A GRAMMAR SCHOOL

First Year: - 3 lessons per 40 lesson week, one of which will be devoted to local history.

The Ancient World.
1st Term: Early civilisations: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Crete-Mycenae. Classical Greece: Athens, Sparta, Xerxes' expedition, Alexander the Great.

2nd Term: Rome: Rise of Rome, Punic Wars, Julius Caesar and the end of the Republic, Roman Britain.

3rd Term: Rome: Project work on aspects of Roman life. Rise of Christianity. Barbarian invasions. Byzantine Empire.

Second Year: - 3 lessons per week, one for local history.

The Medieval and Early Modern World.
1st Term: Dark Ages: Sub-Roman Britain and King Arthur. Settlement of Anglo-Saxons. Early English society. Conversion of Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. The Rise of Islam. Charles the Great.

2nd Term: Middle Ages: Vikings. King Alfred. Norman Conquest. Medieval Manors. The Crusades.

3rd Term: Renaissance. Wide coverage of Renaissance World. Project Work. Reformation in Europe. Emperor Charles V. Ottoman Empire.

Third Year: - 3 lessons per week.

The Tudors and Stuarts.

1st Term: The Early Tudors: Wars of the Roses and establishment of the Tudors. Work of Henry VII and Wolsey. Henrician Reformation. Edward VI and Mary I.

2nd Term: Elizabethan England: Church, Parliament, Mary Stuart, Spanish Armada. Project on some aspect of Elizabethan England.

3rd Term: The Stuarts: Civil War. 30 Years War. Interregnum. Restoration. Glorious Revolution.

Fourth Year: - 2 lessons per week (plus 1 lesson allocated to Modern Studies/Civics).

Hanoverian and Early Victorian Age.

1st Term: Age of Walpole. Jacobite Rebellions. Eighteenth Century life (upper classes, working classes, education, law, recreation). British and French in North America. American War of Independence.

2nd Term: Agricultural Revolution. Industrial Revolution. Canals and roads. Wesley and Methodism. George III and the Constitution. French Revolution.

3rd Term: Napoleonic Wars. Reaction and Reform. Railways and steamships. Science and industry in Early  19th Century. Peel and the Corn Laws. Life in mid-19th Century (town and country).

Fifth Year: ("O" Level, Combined Oxford &Cambridge Board: 1763-1846): 3 lessons per week.

1st Term: George III and the politicians 1763-84. Events leading to the American War. The Amercan War of Independence. Industrial Revolution. Peace-time policy of the Younger Pitt. Napoleonic Wars 1793-1806.

2nd Term: War-time policy of the Younger Pitt. Napoleonic War 1806-15. American War 1812-15. reaction and Liberal Toryism 1815-30. Foreign Policy of Castlereagh and Canning. Whis and Reform 1830-41.

3rd Term: Palmerston's foreign policy 1830-41. Peel's ministry 1841-46. Revision for exam.

Sixth Form Syllabus: "A" Level, Combined Oxford & Cambridge Board: English History 1471-1688; European History 1461-1721; Special Subject as prescribed): 8 lessons per week - 4 English History; 4 European History).

Lower Sixth Year:

English History:
Revival of royal power under Edward IV and Henry VII. Wolsey: domestic. Wolsey: foreign affairs. Henry VIII and the break with Rome. Thomas Cromwell and the Reformation. Tudor revolution in government? Edward VI's reign. Mary and the Counter-Reformation. Price Rise in 16th Century. Enclosures and the wool trade. Elizabeth: Religion. Elizabeth: Parliament. Elizabeth: Foreign affairs.

European History:
The rise of the nation states. Italian Wars. Reformation and Luther. Emperor Charles V. Ottoman Empire. Reformation and Calvin. Counter-Reformation. Philip II of Spain. The Revolt of the Netherlands. The French Wars of Religion.

Upper Sixth Year:

English History:
James I and Parliament. Charles I and the 11 years' tyrannny. Causes of Civil War. The Civil War. The Commonwealth. Oliver Cromwell. The Restoration Settlement. Charles II and Parliament. foreign policy of Charles II. James II and the causes of the Glorious Revolution.

Special subject in spring term.

European History:
Reconstruction of France under Henri IV and Richelieu. Thirty Tears War. Foreign policy of the Cardinals. Mazarin and the Frondes. The rise of Sweden. Rise and fall of the Netherlands. Louis XIV: domestic. Louis XIV: wars. Decline of Spain. Emperor Leopold I. Charles XII and the decline of Sweden. Rise of Brandenburg-Prussia. Russia under Peter the Great.

Revision for exam in summer term.  


Commentary on Syllabus.
In constructing a school syllabus, the history teacher has to remember the two-fold responsibility that we encountered in the previous section. His syllabus should be both faithful to the structure of the subject and concerned with the gradual development of the pupil. It has, too, a double function: firstly, it lays down the the order in which these contents are to be studied, and, secondly, it lays down the order in which these contents are to be studied. The latter raises the whole problem of the structure of history, while the question  of content involves the problem of selection in the study of history.

Most historical syllabi adopt a chronological approach to the problem of the order in which we study history, and in the syllabus outlined above I have followed this practice. It has been said, however, that such an approach is merely traditional, is not necessary to the study of history, and indeed that history can be better studied from the present backwards. This I do not believe. The wide adoption of the chronological approach would seem to demonstrate that this is the natural method. Furthermore, to study history backwards implies that study of the "practical past" to which I have objected.

The problem of content poses the larger problem of selection. This problem should be sub-divided into its four component parts: the events, periods and aspects of history that we study, and the scale in which we study it. The first problem of selection, that of selection, I do not propose to study at length. Our choice of events cannot be altogether personal, for some events would appear to be of greater importance than others. The criteria for such judgment involves great controversy, but would seem to depend, firstly, on what we consider important in our own experience, and, secondly, on our interpretation of historical events in general. In my own syllabus I have taken care to select topics suited to the intellectual development of the pupils. For the younger pupils the topics should be suitable for the imaginative experience, which I believe to be the great value of history in the junior part of the school.

The second problem, that of periods, is of immediate concern to the framer of a syllabus. The old dilemma of Outlines v. Periods, first described by Professor Tout, rears its head. Those who maintain that history is the story of the development of community must find the division of history into periods inhibiting to their purpose. Those who see history as an imaginative reconstruction of the past demand a detailed study of s few periods of time. This is the "patch" philosophy. Both viewpoints have much to be said for them, but both, too, have their disadvantages. The supporter of outlines is surely right to emphasise the essential continuity of
history, but history that is only concerned with outlines will tend to be superficial.The advocate of the "patch" approach is right to demand a study in depth, but unless these patches can be put into their place in time, much of the advantage of the historical perspective will be lost. Thus, it seems highly desirable in the framing of a syllabus an amalgam of both these points of view should be sought. Both the horizontal perspective of the "outline" approach and the vertical perspective of the "patch" approach are necessary to the study of history.

Thus, in my outline syllabus I have attempted to balance the two. The first year's work is a study of the best known aspects of the Ancient World, while the next three years' work covers the history of England from Roman times to the Great Exhibition of 1851. The only long break comes in the second year where I have jumped from the Crusades to the Renaissance, thus leaving out the High Middle Ages. This is regrettable, but on balance seems the most expendable period. At the same time, I have set aside time in the first three years for studies in depth on Rome, the Renaissance world and Elizabethan England. Here, I envisage some from of project method to be adopted. For the fourth year this seems unnecessary, as the work chosen is aimed at providing a background study to the next year's "O" Level work. By doing this, it is hoped that "O" Level history may be less superficial than it so often is. The "A" Level Course, by providing two outline and one special subject paper ensures the balance between outline and patch. I have chosen the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries for the "A Level Course because of the great variety of material they cover. Constitutional, religious and international issues all appear prominently.

I have not included any modern or contemporary history in my syllabus for the reasons outlined in the sections above on the aims of history teaching, but I have in the fourth year put aside one lesson for Modern studies, and would presume Geography to have done the same. This subject would include contemporary history and Civics, which I have left out of the history syllabus. In the "O" Level year, I have calculated that both History and Geography would need the extra lesson again. One period of Modern studies at least would be desirable, but owing to the pressure of "O" Levels might be impossible. In time, it might become an
"O" Level subject in its own right. (The Scottish Examination Board already sets such a paper.)

The third problem of selection that we have to consider is one of aspect. My syllabus follows the traditional general history approach to this problem. I have not included in it a course of social or economic history as such. The advantages of aspect history seem to me to be somewhat doubtful. Apart from general structural doubts about the value of extrapolating certain aspects of the historical narrative, there are other difficulties. The obvious strong point in the case for social history is that it is nearer the child's experience, and should thus be more intelligible and appealing to him. Such a fact can only be shown by experience, but it would seem that, if this is true, it is because it has become descriptive history. History bereft of politics, and with no sociological apparatus to explain it, appears devoid of intellectual discipline. Economic history, properly so-called, is not suited to pre-"A" Level work, and even at the later stage, if not studied in conjunction with economic theory, its value is small.

Another branch of history - local history - , I have provided for in the syllabus, giving it a lesson a week for the first two years. Such a study should give to the child an interest in his immediate environment. Also, it trains him or her to be more observant of it. Though subsidiary to the main aim of history teaching, local history has much to teach the child.

The final problem of selection in the composition of the history syllabus is concerned with the scale of study. In my syllabus I have kept mainly to English history in the years before "A" Level. It is fashionable today to speak of the need for World history, an idea that springs from an equally fashionable contempt for patriotism rather than from any from any solid intellectual basis. The great virtue of national history is that it allows generalisations about the activities of groups of people, a fact convenient for both the teacher and the pupil. But where foreign events are seen to impinge on the history of the nation, I have not hesitated to include them in my syllabus, while making no apologies for the national scale of study. In such a syllable, both the imaginative and intellectual aims of history teaching can be dealt with adequately. World history at the present time would add nothing essential.

III.  DETAILED DESCRIPTION of three units of instruction and three individual lessons.

A.  The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.

Form: a below average grammar school 2nd Year. 5 lessons, 1 in detail. Text-book: "Portrait of Britain before 1066", by Donald Lindsay and Mary Roper Price (Oxford 1963). Ch. 12, pp. 153-170.

Lesson 1. Aim: To discover the religious situation in Britain before conversion attempts. Begin by reminding the class of their recent study of Anglo-Saxon society, picking out important points. Then refer to diagram of Anglo-Saxon village, recently made. Now make connection from this work to new work by oral questioning:

Teacher : "What thing stands out most in the village today?"

Desired answer: "The Church."

Teacher : "Did the Saxons we have just been learning about have a churches?"

Des. Ans.: "No."

Teacher : "No. That's right. The Saxons were 'Pagans' or 'Heathens' (Write up on the board). Does anyone know what these names mean?"

Ans.: Probably fairly close to required meaning.

Teacher : "If someone was 'pagan' or 'heathen' it meant that he didn't believe in the same god as the Christians. Can anyone suggest why the Saxons were not Christians?"

 Ans.: (Pause) Unlikely.

Teacher : "Well, where did Christianity come from? Who brought it to Britain in the first place?"

Des. Ans.: "The Romans."

Teacher : "Good. Now can anyone suggest why the Saxons knew nothing about Christianity?"

Des. Ans.: "Because they came from a place that the Romans never ruled."

Teacher : "Yes. Good. The Anglo-Saxons came from North Germany, which had never been in the Roman Empire, and so, they, unlike the Britons, had never heard of Jesus Christ. Now what we are going to do is to see how it was that the Anglo-Saxons became Christians."

Now tell them to write in their exercise books the heading "THE CONVERSION OF THE ANGLO-SAXONS". Then establish the meaning of the word 'Conversion' - not difficult after above questioning. That done, tell class to read p.153, which is concerned with what happened to the Christians in Britain after the Romans left.

When they have read this, test their understanding by oral questioning:

Teacher : "Where did the Christians go when they were defeated by the Saxons?

Des. Ans.: "To Wales, Cornwall and Elmet."

Teacher : "Where is Elmet?"

Des. Ans.: "Yorkshire."

Teacher : "Did the Britons want to convert the Saxons to Christianity?"

Des. Ans.: "No."

Teacher : "Why not?"

Des. Ans.: "Because they hated the Saxons for invading their country."

Next dictate a note to them which should appear in their books thus:

"1. What happened to the Christians.
After the death of King Arthur the Christians were pushed westwards by the Anglo-Saxons. In Wales and Cornwall they set up Christian kingdoms. In Yorkshire they was also a small Christian kingdom called Elmet. The Britons did not want to convert the Saxons, because they hated them for stealing their land."

Then, make the point that the Saxons also had a religion of their own, even though it was not Christian: "They thought that their religion was the true one, and that the Christians were wrong. Now we are going to find out what their religion was like."

Set them to read pp. 154-157, and tell them to continue reading it at the start of the next lesson.

Lesson 2.  Finish reading pp. 154-157 - talk about primitive religions - make note on Anglo-Saxon religion - introduce story of St. Patrick - set reading of pp. 157-160 about Patrick - male note on St. Patrick - set homework: read pp. 160-162 and make own note on St. Columba.

Lesson 3.  Talk about St. Columba - point out illustrations from "Pictorial Education" - set question "Why I became a monk at Iona." - set drawing of a picture of a monk at Iona.

Lesson 4.  Finish off previous work - set reading pp. 162-164 about Pope Gregory the Great - talk about Augustine's expedition to Kent - set homework: read pp.164-167 about Augustine. Then write a letter from Augustine to Gregory, giving progress report on mission and a description of how Saxons live.

Lesson 5.  Set reading of pp. 167-170 about spread of Christianity to Northumbria - talk about early conversions and effect of them - give out duplicated map of Great Britain. Tell class to draw in the seven kingdoms from the map on p.169 - put diagram on board showing by arrows the way in which Christianity spread. Tell class to copy this.

B.  The Causes of the American Revolution.

Form: a top stream grammar school 4th Year. 4 lessons, No. 2 in detail. Text-book: "Britain, 1714-1851", by Denis Richards and A.O.H. Quick (Longmans 1961). Ch. 5, pp. 65-70.

Lesson 1.  The Mercantilist System. Prepare diagram on blackboard, demonstrating principles and working of the system. Introduce topic by pointing out that causes of differences between G.B. and colonies were long-standing and went back well beyond 1757. State that trade problems were one of these causes. Expose diagram. Point out salient features, and tell class to copy diagram into their exercise books. Then discuss advantages and disadvantages of the system both for G.B. and for colonists.

Lesson 2.  Introduce lesson by reminding class of work done in last lesson: "In our last lesson, we had a look at what is called the Mercantilist System, and we were particularly concerned to look at it from the point of view of a background to the American War of Independence. Now, close your books, and let us see how much you can remember."

Then pose certain questions about the Mercantilist System to the class in general:

Teacher : "What were the main points, the main characteristics of this mercantilist system?"

Des. Ans.: "Colonies provided raw materials and sent them home to Britain."

Teacher : "What were these raw materials?"

Des. Ans.: "Sugar, cotton, tobacco, furs, naval stores, etc."

Teacher : "Yes. Good. but why did Britain prefer to get these things from colonies rather than from other foreign countries?"

Des. Ans.: "If you buy from foreign countries, you have to let money leave the country. If you buy from colonies, it stays in the country."

Teacher : "Well, in the empire anyhow. Yes, excellent. It was thought that you could measure a country's wealth by the amount of money in its treasury. Thus more money must be brought into the country than is taken out. This then creates what we call a favourable balance of payments. Having colonies helped the balance of payments, because you could now buy your raw materials from your own countrymen."

Now, tell the class to take down notes on the Mercantilist System: "As this is a very complicated subject, I want you to take down some short notes about this. The heading is: 'Causes of the American Revolution", and the first sub-heading is 'The Mercantilist System'. (Note-taking will involve a continuation of the above discussion; teacher will coax ideas from class, then write them down on the blackboard in his on words. Notes will appear in this form:

"1. Principles of Mercantilist System.

 a.  Colonies produce raw materials for mother country.
 b.  Most of these raw materials could not be sold to other countries. (Enumerating Laws)
 c.  Goods imported into colonies from Europe had to go via Britain and pay duties there.
 d.  Colonists could not develop their own industries and had to buy manufactures from Britain.
 e.  All trade was conducted in British ships.
 f.  Colonies increased employment in Britain.

 2. Advantages for the Colonists.

 a.  Balance of trade favoured them. They sold more to G.B. than they bought from it.
 b.  They were assured of a market for their goods in G.B.

 3. Disadvantages for the Colonists.

 a. Trade restrictions limited profits of merchants. (But large profits came from smuggling.)
 b. Imported manufactures made more expensive than if they had been made in America.)

Teacher : "In fact, the Americans were really quite well off under the mercantilist system, though some of the restrictions were a nuisance. The real issue was why should the colonists have to submit to any restrictions. They were becoming stronger and stronger, and did not see why they should have to obey laws passed three thousand miles away. Also, since the defeat of the French in the Seven Years War (1756-63), they were no longer dependent on British military force.

"Now, at the same time, the British Government was becoming more and more determined to assert its rights over the colonies. As a result of the Seven Years War British territory had doubled in size, and the cost of defending it had increased enormously. The war had increased the Government's debts. So it was determined that the colonists should help to pay for their defence by taxation. The colonists, however, were very reluctant to pay taxes fixed at Westminster, and thought that they should tax themselves, if anyone was going to.

"So we have a situation in which both sides were becoming increasingly obstinate, and, as nobody backed down, Britain and her colonies drifted into war."

Work set to the class: "So for the rest of this lesson, and for your homework, I want you to read pp. 65-70 in your text-book, and then list chronologically all the events from 1763 to 1775 which had to do with the relationships between Great Britain and the colonies. (Demonstrate this on blackboard.) When you have done this, have a look at the chronological order and see if it suggests how the break came about."

Lesson 3.

Begin by looking at above problem. Try to establish that each side became more and more irritated by the provocative actions of the other, until both were determined that the other should be taught a lesson. Then, discuss following question: "What two conflicts of the colonists from 1763 to 1775 came into conflict with each other?" Juxtapose liberty and loyalty as desires, but show strong mercenary motive behind former. Demonstrate mercenary aspect of American discontent by Boston Tea Party incident. Instruct class to prepare lecturettes, presenting the arguments of both sides.

Lesson 4.

Hold lecturettes, selecting speakers without warning. all should be prepared top speak for either side. End lesson by pointing out that both sides deserve some sympathy. Show that opportunism of Americans and opportunism of British Government both contributed to the break that few had originally wanted.

C.  Charles XII of Sweden.

Form: Upper Sixth. 3 lessons, no. 3 in detail.

Lesson 1.

Aim: To deal with the position of Sweden in 1697: Causes of Swedish success in Seventeenth Century. Swedish control of Baltic. (Class should contribute to this.) Familiarise with Baltic geography. Internal reforms of Charles XI. Subservience to monarchy. (Teacher to deal with these.) Set essay: "Was Charles XII responsible for the decline of Sweden?" Give reading: D.Ogg's "Europe in the Seventeenth Century"; L.W.Cowie's "Seventeenth Century Europe"; Cambridge Modern History Vol. V; and F.G.Bengtsson's "Life of Charles XII".

Lesson 2.

Aim: To deal with enemies of Sweden. Causes of hostility between Sweden and Russia, Poland-Saxony, Brandenburg-Prussia, and Denmark to be ascertained. (Done in conjunction with class.) Discuss ways of tackling essay question. Then give rest of lesson for individual work.

Lesson 3.

Aim: To deal with points arising from essays.

Begin by giving back essays on C.XII. Go through them briefly, stressing mainly constructional points, e.g. relation to question, use of paragraphs, etc.

The rest of the lesson will then be a discussion about C.XII and the decline of Sweden. In it reference will be made to points in the essays just handed back. The following material indicates the way in which the discussion will be led. Not all the points will necessarily be made by the teacher. It is hoped that as many as possible will emerge during the discussion. It is presumed that most of the essays make the point that C.XII was mad. The aim of the discussion is to consider this point carefully, to insist that theories be backed up, and loose argument exposed.

a. Discuss character of C.XII.

Was he mad? If so, what evidence do we have? His conduct of Great Northern War (1700-21) will probably be mentioned. He strained manpower of Sweden to breaking point - 146,000 out of less than one million, 30% of male popn. killed. Personal characteristics: he was brought up to be an autocrat and to feel himself accountable to no one but God. Thus, he disregarded the sufferings of his countrymen in the course of his wars. His education largely military: fighting became his raison d'etre. He had an uncompromising nature - Voltaire called him "The only man in history who was free from all vice" - and he was quite unable to accept defeat when he had embarked on some task. He could not understand weakness in others (read Peter the Great's speech in Bengtssson p.388).

Was this madness? It is hard for us to understand the mind of a man brought up in the position of C.XII. His suicidal wars have been considered evidence of his madness. Let us consider this point.

b. What alternative to fighting did C.XII have? 

If we agree that his wars proved a disaster to Sweden, we must still face the question of what alternative did he have. The other Baltic nations were determined to humble Sweden and recover lost territory. Great Northen War begun not by Swedish aggression but by intrigues of Augustus of Saxony, Peter the Great, Frederick III and Reinhold Patkul, the Livonian patriot. War was the only way in which Sweden could maintain her empire. A peaceful policy, one of appeasement, would have meant surrendering continental provinces. Swedish ability had already won an empire against great odds. C.XII was not entirely unreasonable in trusting to this ability again. If we do consider C.XII was mad, we cannot cite his war policy as evidence per se. If Sweden was not to decline, there seemed little alternative.

c. Does the conduct of the war give us this evidence?

If we are to find evidence for C.XII's madness, we are more likely to find it in his conduct of the war. He failed to take advantage of his great victory at Narva (1700), allowing Peter to recover and conquer the Eastern Baltic provinces. He allowed his personal vendetta with Augustus of Saxony to become his prior consideration and pursued him across Europe when he should have been dealing with Russia. (This is easy to see with hindsight, and it must be admitted that at the time Poland might have seemed a greater threat than Russia.) This is hardly evidence for madness.

C.XII's most disastrous mistake was to invade the Ukraine in the winter of 1708-09. Prudence demanded reconquest of the Baltic provinces. The difficulties of the course of action he adopted were enormous - and it may have been precisely this that attracted him to it. However, the sudden collapse of his ally, Mazeppa, Khan of the Zaporogian Cossacks, was an event that he could not have expected. Nor did it help that the winter of 1708-09 was the coldest on record. It would seem that over-confidence and foolhardiness led him to this disaster. Madness can hardly be proved.

David Ogg is probably right in thinking C.XII's behaviour after Poltava (1708), the best evidence for his insanity. having failed to get effective Turkish support against Peter, Charles refused to leave the fortress of Bender where he had stayed from 1709 to 1713. His bloody eviction was one of the most bizarre episodes in history. Even stranger was his constant refusal to consent to diplomatic attempts from Stockholm to come to terms. Yet he sent no instructions either. These actions do induce grave doubts as to the sanity of C.XII.

d. Conclusion.

It seems that evidence is not strong enough to show that C.XII was a madman. That he suffered from delusions cannot be denied. His behaviour in 1709-13 was especially peculiar. But the picture Ogg paints seems exaggerated. He suggests that C.XII fought his wars inspired by the desire for military glory, but it is edmore likely that he was determined to retain the position Sweden had gained in 1660, and to destroy the power of the countries that threatened this. Perhaps the ease of his early success led him to make his disastrous error of judgment in 1708.

Thus, though his actions demonstrate eccentricity and irresponsibility, we have no reason to suppose that he was insane.

e. Reasons for the decline of Sweden.

End lesson by summarising causes other than the strain of the Great Northern War: Swedish empire never a political unity - very difficult to defend - small population of Sweden proper - excessive tools ruined Baltic trade - rise of Russia and Brandenburg-Prussia.

(Next topic to be considered.)

                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------


Postscript.

While I still hold a number of the opinions expressed in the essay above, my subsequent experience as a history teacher caused me to reconsider a great deal as well. I still believe that a history teacher has a duty to provide his students with a chronological perspective, and that some priority must be given to the history of Great Britain. However, I would strongly dispute the statements that world history can add nothing of value that cannot be provided by national history, and that the history teacher should not seek to cover any topics after 1870. The views I expressed in 1968 now appear astonishingly arrogant and naive, and indeed I suspect that even then I must have realised that they were very hard to justify. But in fairness to myself they, and the syllabus I proposed above, do reflect not only my own historical education at school but the relative paucity of historical textbooks and materials at that time relating to modern history and certainly to  modern world history. By the time I returned to school-teaching in the mid-1970s things had changed in this respect, and some increasingly exciting materials concerning modern World history were available. Indeed I introduced such a study as an option at the "O" Level/CSE stage into the Radcliffe School, Wolverton, Milton Keynes, Bucks, where I taught from 1975 to 1977. As a result of this  experience, I would now probably put forward modern World history (i.e. encompassing much of the Twentieth Century) into the syllabus for what are now Years 10 and 11. Another important influence upon me in the mid-1970s were the opportunities provided by the Schools' Council History Project, under which I arranged for my Third Year class (now Year 9) to study the History of Medicine as an in-depth project, and to look at cognitive skills in history, including the study of source materials, critical awareness and detection of bias. Another seminal experience for me was the discovery of a sunken medieval village near Wolverton, and on the basis of the excitement caused by this I would look very closely to introducing as much local history as possible into the early years of the secondary school. Finally, I would have to consider critically my concerns about "practical history". While there certainly is a methodological difficulty with the Whig Interpretation of History and the practice of only looking at those aspects of a period which can be made relevant to the present day, I now think that, if we wish to see history returned to its former position as a compulsory GCSE subject, as I certainly do, there must be a price to pay in terms of what precisely is studied and why. In the end history can only be justified as a compulsory subject if is taught as the basis for an understanding of how our society, both national and international, has developed. If this involves a measure of "practical history", then so be it.