Jones 1970 Towards a Theory of History Teaching.pdf

8/14/2019 Jones 1970 Towards a Theory of History Teaching.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jones-1970-towards-a-theory-of-history-teachingpdf 1/11

T O W A R D S A T H E O R Y O F

H I S T O R Y T E A C H I N G

G A R E T H E . J O N E S

Swansea ollege of Education

READERS OF THIS JOURNAL can hardly fail to have noticed that school

history is under fire.l We have been confronted with ‘History in Dangerlaand

‘Contemporary Problems of Sixth Form Hi~tory’,~nd these articles musthave made disquieting reading for teachers of history at all levels. In them

we find material enough for the cynics and, worse, increased cause for pessi-

mism among history teachers. There are large numbers of young school-

leavers who find history useless and boring. We are confronted with pathetic

examples of how history teaching is Victorian in its concentration on rote

learning. Further, we have evidence of considerable dissatisfaction among

sixth formers concerning the relevance of their courses and the pressures of

examinations.

Paradoxically, however, the pages of History might well provoke notpessimism but confidence in the future of history as a school subject. Firstly,

it is a healthy sign that the widespread fears of history teachers are not being

swept under the carpet. crisis does exist, and the resultant necessity for a

fundamental reappraisal of the basic questions in history teaching will surely

result in constructive answers. Secondly, appearing next to Mary Price’s

‘History in Danger’ came an article by John Fines4 describing his own work

in compiling archive teaching material for work in primary schools, work

which is being duplicated for secondary schools by Teachers’ Associations in

many parts of the country. This was a re-assuring account in that it gave

some insight into new approaches to history teaching which enlivened and

stimulated young children through the use of basic historical material,

material which has not normally been thought of as suitable at junior school

level and, indeed, is often deemed non-viable in the secondary school. It is on

the basis of this approach to the teaching of history that some kind of theo-

retical framework might well be erected on which teachers of history at all

levels could counteract the doubts about their subject which are bound to

arise from current criticism. Iwant to argue that John Fines is taking us backto fundamentals while the kind of answers Martin Roberts postulates as a

solution to ‘Contemporary Problems of Sixth Form History’ only lead usdown a temptingly sign-posted cul-de-sac.

I am most grateful to Professors Glanmor Williams and Henry Loyn for their com-ments. They are of course in no way responsible for the opinions expressed.

Mary Price ‘History in Danger’ in Hisfory vol. LIII, 342.Martin Roberts ‘Contemporary Problems of Sixth Form History’ in History Vol.

LIV, 93. J. Fines ‘Archives in School’ in History vol. LIII, 348.54



GARETH E. JONES

Before pursuing this argument, however, let us be quite clear about the

extent of the threat which we face as history teachers. It is not only school

leavers and sixth formers who are voicing their doubts. Also concerned with

the secondary school, but with a vastly different emphasis, Professor Elton

has questioned whether history should be taught at all in school, even, pre-sumably, at sixth form leveL5 He tells us that history is a subject for the

mature and doubts that a sufficient level of maturity exists in schools for the

subject to be satisfactorily dealt with. His arguments can be questioned on the

basis that he understands history to be only a highly academic discipline of

the kind practised at university level, but nonetheless statements of this sort

from a historian of such calibre add another dimension to the debate.

At the other end of the school spectrum, enshrined in the sacrosanct pages

of a national report oneducation relating to Wales, we have the statement that

‘We do not consider that history should be a completely separate subject ofstudy in the primary school. It is a part of the study of environment, and

closely related to other aspects, as it is to language and It is,

perhaps, not too great a step from here to an advocacy that history need not

be taught in the secondary school except as a branch of civics or environ-

mental studies, as has indeed happened in some schools. The problem, then,

is not only concerned with syllabus and method of teaching, it is on a theo-

retical level about the viability of the subject and it comes both from educa-

tionists concerned with the psychology of learning and from historiansconcerned with the nature of their subject. This mass attack cannot be

answered on the practical level alone. It is not to be met by a readjustment of

the syllabus or by a blitz on bad teaching methods. Somehow a common

element in all these criticisms has to be sought and we have to justify our-

selves as history teachers not only to the children and students who sit in

judgement on us but to Professors Elton and Gittins.

In one sense the attack is on a wider front still. We are membersof a society

which has been conditioned to think in terms of productivity, economic

returns and material objectives. This is meant as a statement, not a judge-ment, but it does involve the assessment of the various academic disciplines

in these terms when education is one of the most costly of the social services.

In this context we must face the fact that history is one of the subjects least

able to defend itself.

Furthermore history is not what might be termed a ‘stage’ subject. A recent

article reported a survey of university students who were studying economics.’

The survey found that those students who had studied no economics per-

formed only very marginally worse than those who had pursued a full-scale

advanced level course. The same kind of results might well recur among

university students of history who had never done the subject at school. If

the opinions of a number of university teachers are to be believed, that they

spend most of the first year of a history course breaking down preconceptions

G R. Elton, The Practice ofHi stor y London, 1967), 145-6.The Gittins Report, Primary Education in Wales H.M.S.O., 1967).C .D. Harbury and R. Szreter,‘The Relevanceof G.C.E. to further study of Economics’,

Times Educational Supplement Sept. 27th, 1968, 593.



6 TOWARDS A THEORY OF HISTORY TEACHING

built up in school, then it might be argued that school history is a positive

hindrance to the future university student. Certainly there is no similar justifi-

cation in history for the stage-by-stage development which is so essential in

a subject like mathematics. There is no corpus of knowledge which is essential

to the schoolboy and on a conceptual level the development of the kind ofcritical faculty necessary might well result from other disciplines.

The most profound dilemma, though, results from the writings of historians

themselves on the nature of their subject. We have the problem outlined by

Dance of the absurdity of nationalist interpretations of history.s Here is a

problem of bias on such a scale as to make nonsense of many of our syllabuses.

But the philosophers of history are more disquieting. Between the opposite

poles of the Collingwood idealists and the economic determinists there lie an

almost indefinite number of interpretations of what validity there is in our

study of the past. The different answers which emanate from such alumniof the historical world as Professors Carr, Barraclough, Walsh and Elton,O

to name only a few, are so diverse that confusion is only worse confounded.

At the beginning of this century the debate could have been settled more

easily. Acton could foresee the day when definitive history might be written,

when sufficient research would have been done to enable the ‘truth‘ about the

past to emerge from the welter of facts. There were many who agreed with

him. What further justification was needed for the study of history than this?

Few would deny that if we could arrive at the truth about the past the ‘use’

or ‘purpose’ of history is self-evident. The truth is worth arriving at. How-

ever, Acton’s ambition for history has not been realized. In the intellectual

climate of the second half of the twentieth century few would maintain that

it could be realized. The greater the extent of the research the greater the

extent of the problem and the more diverse become the interpretations of the

past. Very recently, of course, Professor Elton has asserted that the historian

can arrive at the truth, given a sufficient degree of engrossment in the docu-

ments. Nevertheless, despite the value of The Practice of History this is the

most difficult part to accept. Professor Elton himself would surely claim onlyto have come nearer the truth in his reinterpretation of the significance of

Thomas Cromwell. It is doubtful indeed if Dr. Penry Williams and Dr.

Harriss, among others, would agree that The Tudor Revolution in Government

represents the whole truth.1° The important element in The Practice of History

is, surely, that Professor Elton has shown how dangerous false bias is in

dictating our study of history. He has not proved the case that there is no

legitimate bias which is ineradicable from each person’s interpretation.

It is hardly to be wondered at, then, that the constant attempts to justify

the study of history in terms of its usefulness and relevance are fraught with

danger. The attack on history is on so many levels, external and internal to

E. H. Dance, History the Betrayer London, 1960).E. H. Cam, What is History? Harmondsworth, 1964); G Barraclough, History in a

Changing World London, 1956); W. H. Walsh, Introduction to the Philosophy of HistoryLondon, 1951); Elton, op cit.lo Vide, inter alia , G L. Harriss, ‘A Revolution in Tudor History?’ and Penry Williams,

‘A Revolution in Tudor History?’ in Past and Present No. 31, 1965, 89-96; G. R. Elton,The Tudor Revolution in Government Cambridge, 1953).



GARETH E. JONES 57

the subject that it becomes almost impossible to disentangle the skeins of the

argument. There are two particularly grave dangers involved when we are

driven to prove usefulness. The first is that we attempt to adduce virtues in

studying history which do not stand up to examination. For example, it is

only a short step from saying that it helps us understand our present conditionto saying that i t helps us take the right decisions as nations or individuals in

the modern world. The first is a perfectly acceptable statement, the second an

extremely dubious and highly contentious one. But it is the second element

which is us ful and the temptation to argue in its favour a great one. Dr. A. L.

Rowse has argued this kind of case.ll Winston Churchill, he says, was helped

in his decisionsas a war leader by virtue of his study of history and partic-

ularly by his study of the life of Marlborough. This is a most difficult argu-

ment to justify. Does this perspicacity come only to those who write or to all

those who study it? Setting aside questions of definition, Rowse’s argument

would depend on the historian’s verdict as to whether Churchill always made

the right decisions. Once one accepts, as surely everyone must, that occasion-

ally Churchill made mistakes then it can justifiably be argued that his know-

ledge of history contributed to these as well as to his correct decisions. The

only other possibility might be that the circumstances of the Marlborough

wars repeated themselves so exactly in the twentieth century that the same

kind of thinking was adequate to the second World War situation. This is

manifestly absurd and it certainly cannot be proved that history helpedChurchill to make the right evaluation of each circumstance.

The second danger apparent in an attempt to provide the study of history

with a useful purpose is that historians might well take what they consider t

be useful in their modern situation and be prepared to select information

from the past to fit in with its value for the present useful purpose. Elton has

shown how extremes of this view can be fatal to standards of historical

scholarship, the only guarantees of the validity of historical study.12 There

are many much less sinister attempts to read modern uses into the past.

Laudable aims like the inculcation of good citizenship have led people toadvocate the study of past civi li~a tions.~~lthough the effectiveness of such

a study may be doubted the motive is a good one. Similarly, it is advocated

that prospective teachers must have material selected for them on the basis

of its usefulness in, for example, the primary school classroom. But these

‘uses’ must be resisted because they are of the same f mily as much more

serious distortions.

It seems that the anxiety felt about the future of history as a school and

college of education subject has often led to a distortion of what history is

about. When very real pressures are put on history teachers to justify their

subject in a school time-table the justification of ‘usefulness’ is tempting but

dangerous. The uncertainties which exist among historians about the nature

of their subject are bound to be reflected in the arguments put forward,

l l A . L Rowse, The Use of History London, 1946 , 11

laElton, Practice of History 42-3.l R. W Breach, ‘Barraclough and History in the Colleges of Education’ i n Educufion

for Teuchitzg Nov. 1965.



8

bound to minimize their force. It might well seem that the utilitarian

arguments against the study of history carry a great deal more weight than

those for.

It used to be said often, it is still said sometimes, that school history served

a moral purpose, that a study of the past allowed an insight into goodbehaviour and bad and that history could reveal some kind of recipe for the

‘good life’. Presumably this would be reinforced by the realization that the

good life was the right life and the rewarding life. This fitted in well with

Victorian prerequisites. History was full of characters whose uprightness,

goodness and virtue served as a moral lesson for young people and imparted

standards left, right and centre. Unfortunately we have realized that history is

not like this, that characters in history are various shades of grey. There are

many examples but surely the reinterpretation of the life of Judge Jeffreys,

erstwhile villain extraordinary, has undermined for good and all the idea thathistory is composed of ‘good’ and ‘bad‘ people and, more fundamental, the

work of educationists has proved that just because children could recite

‘Henry VIII was a bad King’ or was he one of the good ones? did not mean

that they understood anything by it.

The nineteenth-century heritage has proved damaging in other ways too.

That history was largely the record of the progress of Britain towards great-

ness meant an over-concentrationon national political history which we have

inherited. That this reflected the concentration of academic historians of the

period is no consolation. The result is the kind of aberration recorded in1066and all That The premise on which the teaching was based has now been

destroyed but the over-concentration on political events is still bedevilling

history in the secondary school and even in some primary schools. In circum-

stances like this, as any examiner knows, many gems are produced well up to

the standard of 1066 ncomprehensiblehistory is worse than no history

at all and therefore it is scarcely to be wondered at that criticisms of this kind

of history carry so much weight.

On the surface the more modern utilitarian arguments are much moreattractive. Martin Roberts has furnished us with an excellent example of how

tempting they can be particularly when combined with modern sociological

and psychological observations.14 But on closer acquaintance are they any

more valid than their outdated precursors? No one would deny that the

problems thrown up by his analysis are very real ones, the bias towards poli-

tical history in syllabuses, their vast range, the urge of sixth formers to be

studying a ‘relevant’ subject, the partial strait-jacket of examinations. But to

postulate a solution which comes close to making history a branch of socio-

logy is an absurd concession to the need for ‘relevance’.

Let us examine his argument more closely. ‘Many contemporary sixth

formers are opting for history because it appears to be “socially relevant” in

a way few other alternative subjects are.’ Two points are raised by this.

Firstly if ‘socially relevant’ means being able to comprehend the society and

institutions around us then this is true. But i t is surely only a justification for

TOWARDS A THEORY OF HISTORY TEACHING

l Roberts, op. cit .



GARETH E. JONES 59

studying contemporary history starting if we accept Professor Barraclough 15

at around 1890. It could be argued of course that things happen in a pro-gression but in practice the world of the Russian Czars or the British Raj or,

even more of the medieval church is not particularly relevant to the lives of

most sixth formers. Secondly it raises the question referred to previously ofhow far history as a subject should be tailored to an audience. When MartinRoberts’ sixth formers ask for more ‘socially relevant’ history it is not in-cumbent upon him to adapt history to their needs. This is a distortion similarto others we have mentioned and just as misleading. The solution here is anobvious one. It is to point out rationally the dangers inherent in attempting

to make a kind of chameleon out of academic history and then if they remain

unconvinced to advise them to take up a subject which they believe to bemore ‘socially relevant’.

Lest this appear a dogmatic and reactionary attitude we may considerMartin Roberts’ alternative. In order to make history socially relevant heasks ‘in what way are history social history and sociology related? Inanswering his own question he seems to approve of the judgement of S W. F.Holloway that ‘academic history is an intellectually invertebrate affair.history must become scientific both in aim and method. In other words his-tory and sociology must become one.’ Now it is nonsense to suppose thathistorians have no methodology because there is no one answer to the ques-

tion ‘What is history? When faced witha

piece of historical research we arenot at a loss. As for sociology whose ‘scientific’ approach is suggested as a

crutch for invertebrate history are there not controversies about the nature

of sociology and the social sciences generally? For instance are the socialsciences really scientific or are their methods necessarily parasitic upon his-torical methods and those of other established disciplines? In any case historycannot become scientific; that is the whole point. History and sociology can-not become the same thing. If they could this debate would not be takingplace. We are not participating in a game of semantics but are the inheritors

of different ways of attempting to interpret human behaviour. This point hasbeen convincingly argued by Professor Winch in his Idea of a Social Science.

A short extract might give some indication of his line of argument.

Historical explanation is not the application of generalizations and theories toparticular instances: it is the tracing of internal relations. It is like applying one’sknowledge of a language in order to understand a conversation rather than likeapplying one’s knowledge of the laws of mechanics to understand the workingof a watch. . . The ‘sociological law’ may be helpful in calling one’s attention tofeatures of historical situations which one might otherwise have overlooked and

in suggesting useful analogies. But no historical situation can be understoodsimply by ‘applying’ such laws. Indeed it is only in so far as one has anindependent historical grasp of situations like this that one is able to undeistandwhat the law amounts to at all?6

Martin Roberts thinks that the answer to the problems of sixth form his-tory lies in establishing a precise definition of what history is its structure

l . Barraclough An Introduction to Contemporary History Penguin, 1967), 9-42.l6 P. Winch The Idea of A Social Science London, 958 , 133-6.




the aims of the sixth form course and an understanding of the methodological

differences between contemporary and other history. Even if this were the

only answer, and I do not think it is, we again need to be conscious of the

inherent dangers. There is, for example, the question of an understanding of

the ‘distinctive structure’ of history which will enable us to examine aimsrather than facts. Let us pass over the fact that this seems to contradict the

endorsement of Holloway. To whom do we turn for the definition of this

structure? Not, I would venture, to the sociologists and psychologists whom

Martin Roberts suggests as authorities, but to the historians and philosophers

of history. Their answer is, in one sense, singularly unhelpful, but it points

along the right road. They force us to the definition that history js what

historians write and that there is no agreement about what the structure of

the subject is. In fact this is because history, like literature, does not have a

‘structure’, a concept associated with scientific subjects and only brought tothe historian’s door by the sociologist. What history does have is a rigorous

methodology and this is understood not by reference to American psycho-

logists but by reading history.

If the concept of ‘structure’ in history is a dubious one then it casts grave

doubts on the claim that the advantage of understanding that structure is that

it enables a ‘massive general transfer for interpreting human behaviour in

non-historical settings’. What kind of human behaviour does it help to inter-

pret ? A study of history would hardly claim to give a biological, psychological

or philosphical account of human behaviour, though a knowledge of all these

disciplines might aid the historian. Here again the influence of sociology has

distorted the analysis. History is obviously supposed to provide a scientific

sociological account of human behaviour. But history is not sociology and

seeks only to provide a historical account. This, again, is why it exists as a

separate discipline.

Finally, the buck is passed to the psychologist. As a teacher in a college of

education I would be the last to deny the importance of educational psycho-

logy and its application to the teaching of history. But let us be quite clear asto the role of the psychologist. He has given us the essential information

about, for example, the development of time sense, concept formation and

logical thinking which have revolutionized the teaching of history particularly

at junior school level. But it is not his responsibility to tell teachers of history

what to teach. The onus is on the teacher to take the general findings of the

psychologist and, in the light of these, decide what to teach and how to teach

it. And I have yet to read any psychologist who has stated that sixth formers

are unable to think rather like historians. The basic error here is that once

again the cart comes before the horse. We start off not with history but with

a taxonomy of desirable cognitiveskills. The great advantage of having such

a list would be, as Martin Roberts points out, that you could then devise

scientific ways of examining them, but the compilation of such a list is logic-

ally indefensible. Any taxonomy of skills is parasitic upon the nature ofparticular subjects. It is only from studying the subject that the skills emerge.

I t is absurd to devise a history course on the basis of whether it is useful in



GARETH E. JONES 61

other disciplines, or to tap the historical barrel for the right brew to teach a

particular skill. Yet again we are in the area of dangerous distortion.

An obsession with usefulness, then, is highly misleading. Detractors of the

study of history are on strong ground when they are faced only with a utili-

tarian argument. Is it possible to justify the study of history in any terms?Surely the most convincing argument is that which concentrateson the justifi-

cation for the study of history being internal to the subject. Intellectual

disciplines have developed out of the eternal human attempt to understand

and give meaning to the world around us. Similarly the study of history has

arisen out of curiosity to understand what has happened in the past, not

primarily because of its relevance to the present but just because we want to

understand it. The mathematician does not study maths primarily in order

to be able to apply these principles to the building of aeroplanes. Similarly

with the historian. His problems are different, hence a different methodology,

but both activities are valid in themselves. They would still be valid if there

were no practical applications as a result of them. To justify the study of

mathematics on the grounds that it enables us to build aeroplanes is just as

much a distortion of why the subject is studied as to justify the study of his-

tory in terms of it helping us to understand our present-day institutions.

There is every distinction between a primary purpose and an end product.

Justifying the study of history in terms of its end products is rather like justi-

fying the ascent of Everest in terms of finding out the pulse rate of theclimbers when they got to the top.

It might be objected that the mathematician or scientist is in a much more

fortunate position. Not only is it a great deal easier to convince the general

public of the utilitarian value of science, and therefore of science teaching,

however unreal this may turn out to be on analysis, but the scientist is able to

get at the truth through his experiments. What is the truth to be discovered

by the study of history? n a factual level historians would agree that we

come by the objective truth. N o one would deny that Henry VII became

King in 1485 after winning the Battle of Bosworth. But historians would alsoagree that factual data of this kind are merely the scaffolding of history and

that the study is about the significance of events, why they happened, what

were their consequences, in short the interpretation of the past. In his area

few historians would claim that the objective truth is discoverable and, as a

result, it is much more difficult to justify time spent on such a fruitless search

than that spent on the discoveryof a true relationship in the world of science.

However, this argument ignores two important points. Firstly, scientists tend

uot to claim that they discover ‘the truth’ or ‘laws’. They merely work out

hypotheses which best explain the physical universe given the data as available

at present. Secondly, though the historian is shackled with ideas, even ideo-

logies, which are bound to influence him to some degree, much of the history

written by professional historians does achieve a remarkable degree of

objectivity. As long as commitment to the subject and standards of historical

scholarship come before predetermined conceptions this will remain so.

Nevertheless, this does not provide us with an answer as to what precisely




we are about when we are involved in the teaching of history. We must ask

if there is such a thing as a historical education consistent, not only with ourbeing true to the subject, but with modern educational practice and with the

information provided by the educational psychologist as to the conceptual

abilities of pupils of all ages. I would contend that the answer lies with theprofessional historian. He cannot agree with his fellows as to what the end

product of his work means but he does agree with them on a common

methodology. Four principles may be extracted from this methodology.

First, historians study history because they enjoy it and because they want

to find out about what happened in the past. Second, they tend to work on

problems and not periods. Third, in their research they are working on their

own, tackling problems at first hand, though naturally with guidelines from

the existing store of knowledge. Fourth, they are getting down to the grass

roots by studying the raw material of history, documents as well as othertypes of sources, and attempting to interpret them.

What implications do these principles have for the study of history by

pupils and students? If the study of the past is a valid activity in itself and

this is the methodology of the historical discipline, should not the study of

history at all levels reflect these basic principles. The best answer one can hope

to get from children or students as to why they study history is that they enjoy

it and this answer still occurs frequently enough to be encouraging. On the

basis of the foregoing argument it is the only valid reason for the studyofhistory.

There is much more chance of students of all ages enjoying history if they

study problems, not periods. Perhaps it might be fair to substitute project for

problem in relation to younger pupils. Fortunately, the obsession with a

period to be covered is much less prevalent in the junior school than i t once

was. But it still bedevils history teaching in the secondary school. There is a

syllabus which is sacrosanct. It must be covered at all costs. That it necessi-

tates superficial cramming of a body of knowledge into bemused minds, half

digesting historical platitudes to be regurgitated in terminal and nationalexaminations is scarcely relevant. The period has been ‘done’. Of course there

has to be some kind of framework but it must be utterly flexible and the selec-

tion of material must be on the basis of the suitability of the problem for the

age group concerned. Of course there has to be information and guidance as

well, but the important thing is that the pupil’s mind is working and that he

comes to grips with the question himself.

Obviously in so doing pupils and students alike are adding to their own

knowledge, not inheriting watered down academic judgements. They are

acquiring information which is significant at their particular level, concrete

in the junior school, more abstract as their conceptual ability increases. We

know that they can add to their knowledge most effectively by discovering

for themselves, and this is valid historical methodology. Whether individually

or in groups the emphasis has to be on the work the student or pupil does,

not on the work the teacher does standing in front of the class lecturing or

teaching.



GARETH E. JONES 63

To have said some years ago that children in junior schools could be

engaged on problems of transcribing and understanding documents would

probably have been laughed out of court. This is why Dr. Fines’ article was

of such imp0rtance.l’ In showing that young children can be stimulated to

investigation through studying a document he has shown that even in thejunior school children can be introduced to historical methodology and that

this kind of study is in line with modern thinking about how children learn

best. Of course, at this level, and indeed in the secondary school, there is also

a most important place for other historical ‘documents’ such as historic

buildings, brass rubbings, tombstones and the rest.

The important link, then, at all levels of historical study is the methodology

of the subject and it is this which differentiates it from any other subject. It

is also a methodology which is educationally sound from junior school level

upwards.

The by-products of this study are of great importance. At whatever level

history is studied it is highly likely to result in more active and inquiring

minds, a more refined and critical judgement, a greater understanding of

present-day society, nationally and internationally, an increased enjoyment

of the historical artifacts left by our ancestors, even better citizens. But none

of these can logically be the reason for the study, they are bonuses of a human

endeavour which is legitimate in itself and not because of its utilitarian func-

tion.A theoretical analysis of this kind is open to many practical objections.

Perhaps the most serious might be that this approach could easily degenerate

into mere antiquarianism, that the means might become the end. One can

only reply by asserting that this must depend on the skill and judgement of

the individual teacher in adapting the interpretative questions which are the

stuff of history to the age group which he is teaching. At least the questions

will not be dictated by the false criteria endemic in the utilitarian approach.

Examination requirements pose a formidable obstacle. The criticisms

Martin Roberts makes of ‘A’ level are more than duplicated at ‘ ’ evel.Nevertheless there have been encouraging developments indicating that we

can get away from the examination treadmill to a form of examination com-

patible with the approach to history I have outlined. One of these is Mode 3

of C.S.E. At ‘A’ level the Cambridge University Local Examination Syndicate

has allowed theses based on pupils’ own research to be given a separate ‘A‘

level grading. Mr. Avery has commented ‘I was greatly impressed not only

by the work of the “high fliers” . . .but by the endeavours of those moderate

candidates, not ultimately specialist historians. . .The opportunity . has

clearly given them a new enthusiasm. . Interviews reveal a genuine zest for

the subject of their choice.’ls

The provision of both finance and time is bound to be difficult. The kind

of material necessary for individual and group projects, for books and class

Letter from R. Avery, Headmaster Harrow County School for Boys, published inl7 Fines, op. cit.

Times Educational Supplem ent June 13th 1969 1957.




visits is bound to be expensive. The only solution is a long term one an d alltha t could be expected is that teachers used t o working miracles on a shoe-string budget could eventually build up sufficiently large libraries of projectbooks for individual investigation to take place occasionally. It is being done.

Time like money is at a premium. Suitable documents for junior andsecondary work are not easy to come by. I t is often extremely difficult to getto a coun ty record office and even if the location is convenient few teachershave time t o spend searching for suitable material. Nevertheless the pictureis encouraging Dr. Fines has indicated what is being done by a number ofindividuals bu t what the individual cann ot d o Teachers’ Associations canand an increasing amount of m aterial is being produced by these invaluablebodies.

The threat to history is not tha t it has no obvious ‘uses’. History is in

danger in school and college because so much of the teaching ignores thefundamentals of historical methodology which alone give history its m eaningas a discipline. I t will become boring if the methods historians themselves useare not attempted from time to time at least by both teachers and taught.If they are ignored the excitement and enjoyment of the serious student ofhistory will not be reflected in the school. If we and those we teach cannotshare in this enjoyment then indeed history at this level will die and few willmourn its passing.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	castorypolux20762
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Jones 1970 Towards a Theory of History Teaching.pdf

Documents