jones 1970 towards a theory of history teaching.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
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
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 2/11
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.
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 3/11
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).
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 4/11
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.
8/14/2019 Jones 1970 Towards a Theory of History Teaching.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jones-1970-towards-a-theory-of-history-teachingpdf 5/11
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 .
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 6/11
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.
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 7/11
60 TOWARDS A THEORY OF HISTORY TEACHING
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
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 8/11
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
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 9/11
62 TOWARDS A THEORY OF HISTORY TEACHING
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.
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 10/11
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.
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 11/11
64 TOWARDS A THEORY OF HISTORY TEACHING
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.