THE WORLD OF THE EDUCATION OFFICER

Introduction

This article was written by Andrew William Panton, M.A., M.A. (Ed.), Dip.Ed., Dip. Ed. Mgt., in 1994 in order to explain the work of an education officer in local government. At the time Mr. Panton was Deputy Director of Education (School Management, Advice and Support) at Newham London Borough Council. The article was published in Issue No. 2 of "TermTime" (September 1994),  the house magazine of TimePlan Educational Services, based at 20/21 Arcadia Avenue, London N3 2JU.   

THE WORLD OF THE EDUCATION OFFICER

To the classrooom teacher the role of the education officer in local government is a mysterious one. At the same time education officers have great difficulty in explaining succinctly to anyone what their job actually involves. They do not actually manage or run schools; head teacher do that. Nor do they inspect schools or provide regular advice; inspectors or advisers do that. They do not take the significant policy decisions on behalf of the Local Education Authority; local councillors do that. So what then do education officers do, and why are they always so busy? 

It is probably impossible to give any short answer to this question which gives an adequate flavour of an education officer's work. Perhaps the best description is to say that, at the point when difficult judgements have to be made about resource allocations and the arrangements for pupils in our schools, education officers 'operate' at the interface between the expectations of a public and business-minded world and those of a costly and professional service to ensure that the decisions taken by each local education authority achieve the best possible fit between its financial and legal constraints and its aspirations for a high quality service to the children of its residents.  

In performing this role, it is not always easy to make many friends. The feelings towards an education officer may resemble those of a soldier in the front line for someone who has been posted to an apparently secure head quarters to the rear of the battle line. To continue with the military analogy, the main question which teachers will ask about education officers is whether they have had sufficient battle experience to sort things out for they colleagues remaining at the 'chalkface'. At the same time, an education officer may be viewed with some suspicion by officers in other council departments as someone with expensive and unrealistic notions about the development of a service which already consumes over half of the resources of a local authority, when they may be looking for economies in education spending to finance improvements in other areas of the Council's services.

In practice, the work of an education officer is fraught with contradictions and tensions which can never be conveniently resolved. Education officers have to oscillate between the local government and office environment with its increasing emphasis on business management techniques and a somewhat different professional culture in schools. They have to manage the tensions between the demands of central and local government, which may well be pulling them in different directions in terms of both policy implementation and workload priorities. They have to cope with the ambiguities of a service which is encumbered by a welter of regulatory controls and yet demands an approach which puts individuals first at all times, and which requires professional expertise of the highest order but where the principle of lay control is firmly established. 

To navigate oneself through such apparently conflicting expectations requires both integrity and adroitness. Yet, in any area of work, the administrative function does not bring easy opportunities for the receipt of thanks and praise. If things are running smoothly, it is unobtrusive and may therefore be taken for granted; it tends to become noticeable only when mistakes have been made, or where unpopular policies are being implemented. For these reasons the education officer in local government has to be largely self-motivated, both by a commitment to the aspirations of the Education Service and the knowledge of a job well done.   

An essential aspect to the nature of the work is its local context. Despite the centralising tendencies of recent legislation in the educational field, the need for local accountability is plain if a greater degree of public support for the aims and requirements of the Education Service is to be achieved. A local education authority does provide the necessary democratic focus around which such support can be maintained and developed. This is why education officers in all areas of the country accept as vital the local context of their work. At the  same time the local context provides that alluring combination of the strategic and the immediate which gives the job its particular appeal.

Postscript.

Some eighteen years later, it is sad to reflect that the stress on the importance of a local perspective in the management of the public education service, which I emphasised in the final paragraph of the article above, has not been understood or accepted by successive governments, whatever their party stripe, or indeed by the Civil Service. Indeed, the centralisation of the Service, initiated by the so-called Education Reform Act of 1988, has proceeded relentlessly since that date to the evident detriment both of the quality of state education and of its cost. 

'A' LEVEL HISTORY: STRATEGY FOR WRITING HISTORY ESSAYS

Introduction.

The following plan for writing history essays, and an example of such an essay, was produced by Andrew William Panton, M.A. Dip. Ed., as guidance for 'A' Level students at Eton College, Windsor, Berkshire, in 1975.

A.  STRATEGY FOR WRITING HISTORY ESSAYS

1.  Look at question very carefully: What type of answer does it require? What sections from notes need to be included in the answer? As the essay question seeks to examine depth of knowledge on a particular subject, as much as possible of the information learned should be made relevant to the answer. 

2.  Plan structure of the essay in following sequence:

a.  Mainstream of the essay (2-6 paragraphs)     

(1)  Contains main factual content of the essay. These details should include as many dates, names, and figures as possible.

         
(2)   These facts back up the central theme of the essay.

(3)   Each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence which introduces the facts and relates them directly to the question.
       
(4)   Paragraphs should be linked, if possible, and should follow one another naturally, i.e. in the most natural order.

b.  Introduction

(1)  Should not answer the question but outline in general terms the scope or direction of the answer.

(2)  Should cover any important preliminary details, which cannot be conveniently fitted in elsewhere.

(3)  Should be brief, and not include many facts.

(4)  Should be stimulating.

c.  Conclusion

(1)  Should tie the threads of the essay together, either by summarizing the topics discussed earlier and /or by a general statement. A clinching detail in support of this general statement is often useful.

(2)  Should cover any important concluding details, which cannot be conveniently fitted in elsewhere.

(3)  Should be clear, concise and stimulating.

The minimum details that a plan should include are the paragraph numbers and their topic headings. The general statements and other details required for the introduction and conclusion should also be noted, but only after the content of the mainstream paragraphs has been noted.

                   
Introduction   ................(General scope etc)...........................                            

1.   ................................(Topic heading).................................

2.   ................................(Topic heading).................................

3.   ................................(Topic heading)..................................

4.   ................................(Topic heading)..................................

Conclusion   ..................(Final statement etc)............................

If notes have been thoroughly learned, most of the detailed information will be triggered off by the topic heading.

3.   Write the essay, following the plan.

N.B. If this strategy is followed, every word in the essay should be relevant, i.e. related to the question. Each mainstream paragraph in the essay should elicit the information contained in the note sections that have been made and learned. The topic sentences should then relate this information to answering the question set. Thus, while much of the factual material exhibited in the paragraphs of essay answers will be the same, whatever the specific question that may be asked on a particular subject or area of study, the topic sentences will ensure that this information is related to the question. Thus the section headings in the notes on each subject must be converted into a topic sentence in an essay.

B.  EXAMPLE OF A HISTORY ESSAY

Question: "The accidental by-product of defeat in war, rather than the planned outcome of theory." Discuss this as a comment on the Russian Revolution in 1917.

Plan:

Intro.  Both factors important. 2 revolutions in 1917. Background factors also significant.

1.  Effects of economic modernisation.

2.  Symptoms of political modernisation.

3.  Need for a shock if rev. was to occcur.

4.  Consequences of WW1.

5.  Collapse of Tsarist govt. > March Rev.

6.  Effect of Bolsheviks > Nov Rev.

Conclusion.  Bolshevik plans important in Nov. but dependent on March rev. which was due to War.

Essay: (N.B. Topic sentences are highlighted in italic script.)

"The accidental by-product of defeat in war, rather than the planned outcome of theory." Discuss this as a comment on the Russian Revolution in 1917.

Both the consequences of the First World War and the carefully laid plans of the Bolsheviks were decisive factors in determining the course of events in Russia in 1917. These two factors were of prime importance at different times in a year which saw two distinct revolutions, but neither can be placed in is proper context without a prior consideration of the social and political environment of Russia in 1914, for therein lay the seeds of a potential revolution. 

The changes that Russia underwent between the end of the Crimean War in 1856 and the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 involved her in a deep, if belated, process of modernisation, which, according to the determinist view, was leading her inexorably towards revolution. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 succeeded in raising the expectations, but not the living standards of the vast mass of Russian peasants. Former serfs found themselves farming less land than before, and at the same time paying redemption dues to pay for their land, while their subjection to the landowners had merely been exchanged for the control of the 'mir', or village commune, which allocated the land and the redemption dues. These factors, and the catastrophic rise in the peasant population from 50 to 100 million between 1861 and 1917, led to acute agrarian problems which manifested themselves in a number of sporadic uprisings around the turn of the century. While the social situation in the countryside was changing, the towns were being radically altered by the industrial revolution that was at last taking hold of Russia. The output of coal and iron increased enormously between 1870 and 1914, and the 1,000 miles of railway track in existence in 1860 had grown to 44,000 miles in 1914, thanks largely to the energetic efforts of Count Witte, Alexander III's Minister of Communications. Foreigh investment, particularly French, flooded into the country, and a massive increase in the size of the the town population was attended by the social evils usually associated with rapid industrialisation. Economic growth was particularly marked between 1900 and 1914, in which period it is estimated that the urban population of Russia increased by as much as a third. The numbers of the urban population, the raw material of social revolution, had thus increased to a level where its collective resistance might endanger the security of the state and the social order.  

Modernisation was also affecting the Russian political scene before 1914, even if the Tsar still preserved his absolute authority, and signs of opposition were emerging as possible threats to the old regime. The lasr decades of the Nineteenth Century saw the emergence in Russia of various utopian revolutionary parties, drawing their inspiration from Western Europe. The Social Revolutonaries, offshoots of the international anarchist movement, attempted to stir up the peasantry, while a Marxist party, the Social Democrats, led by Georgi Plekhanov, was pledged to prepare for a proletarian uprising in the big cities. Meanwhile, the Tsarist government, its prestige damaged by the disasters of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 and its credibility shaken by the abortive 1905 Revolution, was forced to concede to the demands of the liberal bourgeois classes for a representative political institution, and, if the Duma that emerged in 1906 was little more than a 'talking shop', it was at least a milestone on the road towards more political changes. 

It is thus apparent that many of the necessary ingredients for a revolution had appeared on the scene by 1914, but the control of the Tsar's government was still too strong, the opposition too divided, and the peasants and urban workers too apathetic for revolution to be within sight. Some profound shock was required if the elements of revolution were to be fused together to produce a dynamic change. 

Such a shock was provided by the First World War (1914-18), the consequences of which were to shatter forever the Tsarist autocracy and to unite for a time all its opponents in a programme of common action. The War was disastrous for Russia both from the military and economic viewpoint. In terms of territory, Russia had done moderately well up to the beginning of 1917, but in human terms her losses had been appalling. The unprecedented slaughter of the Great War was visited upon the Russians most severely of all, some 8 million casualties being sustained between 1914 and 1917. In addition, the armies and the individual soldiers were atrociously equipped, while their generals were usually incompetent and often corrupt. Sukhomlinov, the notorious War Minister, who was dismissed in 1915, had lined his pockets with money designated for military supplies. After the end of the Brusilov offensive in 1916, the Russians had fought to a standstill, and the growing number of desertions from the front testified to the declining morale and the acute war-weariness of the Russian people, as well to as their increasing indignation with a government that was leading them to total disaster. This indignation was accentuated by the economic chaos into which the country was plunged as a result of war. The removal of 15 million men for the army involved the economy in a loss to its labour force that it was unable to make up. The attempt to mobilise the economy on a war footing brought about an economic collapse: factories, mills and blast-furnaces closed down all over Russia. Goods were stockpiled at railway stations, and the inadequate railway system, unable to handle the volume of freight which was necessary to sustain the war effort, slipped from disorganisation into paralysis.The consequences of economic disintegration and the breakdown of communications were massive inflation and a growing shortage of food in the cities. By the end of 1916 prices were 500% higher than in 1914, and bread riots had broken out in Moscow. As a result of these crippling conditions, the masses were provoked out of their usual apathy, and the wave of strikes that hit the country in 1916-17 testify to the success of the revolutionaries' propaganda. 

Meanwhile, the inadequacies of the autocracy were being shown up in stark relief. The Government, composed of aged bunglers and nominees of the hated Rasputin, was quite unable to cope with  the conditions brought on by the War, and pursued a policy of mindless repression that did nothing to tackle the pit of problems into which the country was falling. Tsar Nicholas II, increasingly dominated by his hysterical wife and he 'mentor', Rasputin, failed to respond to the plight of his people or to purge his government of the unworthy elements which the baleful influence of Rasputin had imported into it, and the Tsar's failure led to a growing hatred of him and a contempt for the governmental system which he embodied. Even the aristocracy was contemplating his enforced abdication, and Rasputin was murdered by Prince Usupov, the husband of the Tsar's niece, Princess Irina. Thus were made possible the conditions in which the liberal bourgeois politicians of the Duma would agree to cooperate with Marxist revolutionaries in the spring of 1917. But the outbreak of the Revolution in St. Petersburg in March 1917 was an elemental phenomenon; it was a spontaneous and unplanned protest against the weight of accumulated grievances which the Russian people no longer found bearable. Indeed, the success of the uprising took the revolutionaries so much by surprise that Lenin, the most able of them, was telling an audience in Switzerland in January 1917 that he did not expect that he would live to see the Revolution. Thus it was the cataclysmic circumstances produced by Russia's involvement in the First War, and not the successful action of revolutionary agitators that was responsible for igniting the fuse of revolution in March 1917.

However, if revolutionary planning had little to do with the success of the March Revolution, the success of the Bolsheviks in seizing control of the country in the second revolution of November 1917 was certainly due to the 'planned outcome of theory'. Ever since his return from exile in April, Vladimir Lenin had set about about preparing for a Bolshevik takeover. Differing with the Menshevik, or moderate,  wing of the Social Democratic Party, Lenin argued that the bourgeois revolution must be followed almost immediately by the revolution of the proletariat, and he was quick to realise that in the circumstances of 1917 soldiers and peasants might also be induced to join the forces of the revolution. The combination of Lenin's call for continuous revolution and his policies of 'land for the peasants and peace for all' was to prove irresistible in the land-hungry and war-weary Russia of 1917. In the confusion and the power vacuum of that year, any closely knit political group with a cogent programme of action stood a good chance of success, and the discipline of the elite Bolshevik faction, under the inspiring leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, gave it a striking force out of all proportion to its numbers. The further disintegration of the army, due to Kerensky's decision to renew the War, and the inability of the small bourgeois class to provide a government with 'grass roots' support facilitated the success of the brilliantly planned Bolshevik coup of November 8th. It was a triumph of opportunism based on a clear grasp of political realities.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the superior planning and ideas of the Bolsheviks enabled them to play a vital part in the outcome of the events of 1917; what is equally clear is that that they could never have succeeded had it not been for the downfall of Tsardom in March due to the consequences of the War. The revolution of March expressed in an acute and perhaps uniquely Russian form an almost universal sense of frustration and hopelessness. Under the effects of industrialisation, Russia would no doubt have had to undergo profound social and political changes during the course of the Twentieth Century, but these changes were greatly accelerated by the consequences of the First World War, that 'great locomotive of history'. Under the excruciating strains of that murderous conflict, the sinews of Tsarist Russia cracked, and its structure crumbled away. 

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