Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HAMILTON (1999) The Pedagogic Paradox
HAMILTON (1999) The Pedagogic Paradox
David Hamilton
To cite this article: David Hamilton (1999) The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in
England?), Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 7:1, 135-152, DOI: 10.1080/14681369900200048
DAVID HAMILTON
Ume University, Sweden
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
ABSTRACT Th is article h as b een written for two p urp oses. First, it exp lores a
p arad ox: th at recent Anglo-American usage of pedagogy mirrors the
mainland Europ ean use of d id actic. Secondly, it is a comment on the current
status of curriculum studies. In particular, it relates curriculum analysis to
th e field s of d id actic and p ed agogic analysis.
135
DAVID HAMILTON
them to the field of curriculum studies and, not least, to the title change of
th is journal from Curriculum Studies to Pedagogy, Culture and Society.
A major reason for the change of title is that Anglo-American concep-
tions of curriculum have become both limited and limiting. Since
Curriculum Studies was founded in 1993, curriculum theorising has
atrop h ied . It h as lost touch with th e d eep er q uestions th at, for centuries,
have animated pedagogy and didactics. It has been reduced to questions
about instructional content and classroom delivery. The sense that a cur-
riculum is a vision of the future and that, in turn, curriculum questions
relate to human formation has been marginalised. The short-termism of
What should they know? has replaced the strategic curriculum question
What sh ould th ey b ecome? (cf. Hamilton & Gudmundsdottir, 1994).
In both its classical and Enlightenment senses, pedagogy denoted the
process of upbringing and the influences that might shape this human
activity. It is no accident, therefore, that the philosopher Immanuel Kant
opened his lectures on education, ber Pdagogik (1960, originally
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
136
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
educated for the positions reserved for them in the pre-ordained and
immoveab le ord er of th ings:
Each system, largely self-contained , d eveloped its own specific
educational ap p roach , each with in its narrowly d efined field , and each
appropriate to its sp ecific social function. In these circumstances the
conditions d id not, and could not, exist for th e d evelop ment of an
all-embracing, universalised , scientific th eory of ed ucation relating to
th e p ractice of teach ing. (p . 133)
Overall, Simons answer to the question Why no pedagogy in England?
was that, for over 100 years, nineteenth and twentieth century ideologies
of human difference, predetermined mental capacity and social
containment precluded the creation and dissemination of a developmental
science of teaching. The vision of Alexander Bains, Education as a Science
(1879) and/or Herbarts The Science of Education (English version, 1892)
remained marginal. They only captured p artial sup p ort th at d id not, and
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
137
DAVID HAMILTON
138
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
139
DAVID HAMILTON
enterp rise. Their goals were less ambitious. The early Italian humanists
learned grammar not to deepen their philosophical understanding but,
rath er, to read the classics and to become eloquent. Nothing more
(Grendler, 1989, pp. 165166).
The humanists who undertook this revision (e.g. Lorenzo Valla
(140757) and Rudolph Agricola (144485), see, for instance, Mack, 1993)
are remembered because they undertook a major reworking of inherited
sources. The works of Cicero and Quintilian, for instance, received par-
ticular attention not only because they displayed classical elegance, but
because their view of oratory also offered a framework for the trans-
formation of learning. Insofar as teaching could be deemed a form of per-
suasion (as well as a mode of presentation), Renaissance teaching
responded favourably to the literature of rhetoric, which included works
b y Cicero and Quintilian.
By the sixteenth century, humanist grammar had broken away from
the commentaries and formalism of medieval practice. It became identified
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
with the teaching of elegant Latin. A new die was cast. The scholasticism
of the Middle Ages was replaced by a new formalism the instructional
turn. As Grendler notes:
After 1500 no major or mid d le-ranking Italian h umanist p ublish ed a
grammar text. Instead , p rimary and second ary sch ool teach ers and
p ersons wh ose careers are unknown to us wrote manuals that
exhibited little originality. Th ey revised , amp lified , and emb roid ered
p revious works, b ecause th e Renaissance grammatical tradition was
set. Just as medieval grammarians developed a curriculum b ased on
th e auctores [auth orities], so th e Renaissance had its pedagogical
grammatical trad ition, and it p ermitted little d eviation. (Grend ler, 1989,
p . 194)
Accordingly, Renaissance reform is historically memorable for its atten-
tion to the reorganisation or restructuring of teaching and learning. It
is surely true, assert Grafton & Jard ine, th at until h umanists h ad d evised
a curriculum and an order or method for progressing through its
bewilderingly rich resources, humanism was bound to remain the
preserve of a small number of dedicated (and leisured) specialists
(p. 124).
Like Grendler, Grafton & Jardine report a sh ift in intellectual focus
from the 1510s onwards (p. 124). The ideal end-product of a classical
education (an orator, perfectly equipped for political life) was replaced by
a new emphasis on classroom aids (textbooks, manuals and teaching
d rills) wh ich would comp artmentalise th e bonae litterae [th e received clas-
sical sources] and reduce them to a system (p. 124). By such means,
Renaissance humanist instruction became formalised and
institutionalised. The ideals of early humanism were replaced by an
institutionalised curriculum cluster (i.e. th e humanities). In turn,
humanist teaching and its teachings became available to a much wider
140
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
141
DAVID HAMILTON
142
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
wh o h ave overall resp onsib ility for d esigning, constructing and steering
systems of sch ooling.
As important, Comeniuss Great Didactic also seems to mark the
original extent of Anglo-American interest in didactics, itself marked in the
international exchange of ideas among Comenius and his followers (see,
for instance, Greengrass et al, 1994). English-language interest in the work
of Comenius and Ratke did not return until the second half of the nine-
teenth century. It was aroused, for instance, by R. H. Quicks Essays on
Educational Reform ers (1868), by M. W. Keatinges translation of Comen-
iuss Great Didactic in 1896 and by Turnbulls MA thesis on Ratke,
submitted to Liverpool University in 1913 (reprinted, in part, in Turnbull,
1993). Indeed, Quick noted in his preface that on the history of Education,
not only good b ooks but all books are in German.
143
DAVID HAMILTON
(see Hayward, 1903, pp. 4142). Moreover, these formal steps could also
be translated into a series of classroom activities and used, therefore, in
the planning and conduct of instruction. The first Herbartian stage (clear-
ness) entailed the analysis of previous notions and the addition of new
matter; the second stage (association) focused on the collation, comparing
and contrasting similar phenomena; the third stage (system) was directed
towards the establishment of generalised notions; and, at the final stage
(method), practical applications were drawn from the results of the earlier
stages.
Herb arts ideas about lesson planning and the organisation of
instruction were, however, intimately bound up with his philosophical
ideas. Scepticism surrounded Herbarts p h ilosop h y for 30 years and , as a
result, his ideas about formal stages suffered a similar neglect. By the end
of the century, however, followers of Herbart reversed this judgement. His
philosophical assumptions yielded to the instructional or didactic features
of his educational theory; notably, its ad ap ted ness ... for ed ucational
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
p urp oses and for social reform and its strength in th ose asp ects ... wh ich
touch up on th e work of the teacher (Hayward , 1903, p . 33).
Th e revival of Herb arts instructional theory was associated with the
names of Volkmar Stoy (181585), Fried rich Wilh elm Drpfeld (182493)
and Twiskon Ziller (181782). Stoy, for instance, refocused educational
practice on the notion of interest, itself d erived from Herb art. Drpfeld
emphasised the importance of a Lehrplan, a definitely thought-out scheme
of stud ies in wh ich every subject should have an organic place ... [not the]
loose aggregate of studies such as is indicated on the average British Time
Table (sic) (Hayward, 1903, p. 47). Ziller revived the moral training
dimension of didactics through a series of books on notion of educative
instruction (erziehenden Unterricht) ranging from Einleitung in die
Allgem eine Pdagogik (Introduction to General Pedagogy, 1856), through
Grundlegung z u Lehre vom Erz iehenden Unterricht (Foundation of a system
of Educative Instruction, 1865) to Vorlesungen ber Allgem eine Pdagogik
(Lectures on General Pedagogy, 1876). The culmination of this restoration
work was a series of texts, written or edited by Wilhelm Rein (18471929),
that included Theorie und Praxis des Volksschul-unterrichts nach Herbart-
schen Grundstz en (Theory and Practice of Instruction in the Elementary
school According to Herbartian Principles, 1878) and the Encyclopdisches
Handbuch der Pdagogik (189599).
Herbart focused on education, while the secondary herbartian
literature focused on the organisation of instruction. If the notion of formal
step s h ad its origins in Herb arts p h ilosop h y, it was resurrected in th e era
of mass schooling and mass instruction. According to Gundem, for
instance, th e:
most imp ortant contrib ution of Herbart, and to some degree the
Herbartians, was to extract d id actics from general ed ucational th eory,
turning it into a d iscip line on its own, d ealing with instruction under
th e cond itions of sch ooling as d istinct from other instructional settin-
gs. But in doing so, th e Herb artians ch anged Herb arts analytical tools
144
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
into sch ematic seq uences p re-forming any hour and minute of teaching.
(Gundem, 1998, p . 23)
In turn, th is rigid, schematic approach to teaching (p. 24) was countered
b y anoth er reform movement that also looked back to Herbart and Kant.
Didactic Analysis
The new movement launched a didactic theory based on the work of Wilh-
elm Dilthey (18331911). A new generation of German educationalists took
a fresh look at educational theory. The notion of a general or universal
theory of education valid for all times and places was set asid e (see, for
example, the account of Uljens, 1997, p. 8). Didactics was re-invented as a
human science (Geisteswissenschaft): that is, as something distinct from
natural sciences (Naturwissenschaft). Educational thought and practice
were to be built upon an analysis of the lived experience of practitioners,
an awareness of the historicity of practice, and an anticipation of the
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
145
DAVID HAMILTON
146
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
147
DAVID HAMILTON
Conclusions
This article has been written for two purposes. First, it explores a paradox:
that recent Anglo-American usage of pedagogy mirrors the mainland
European use of d id actic. Second ly, th is p ap er can also b e read as a
comment on the current status of curriculum studies. In particular, it
relates curriculum analysis to the fields of didactic and pedagogic
analysis.
All of these fields originally arose as part of an instructional turn
nourished in the social, political and confessional circumstances of the
Renaissance and the Reformation. The problematics of pedagogy,
curriculum and didactics intersected, and became cornerstones in the
construction of modern schooling. However, these problematics were not
eternal. As suggested, they changed in the Enlightenment, in the wake of
positivism and, in turn, alongside twentieth century movements variously
d escrib ed as ch ild -centred or post-positivist.
148
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
Correspondence
David Hamilton, Institutionen fr pedagogik, Ume Universitet, SE-90187
Ume, Sweden (david.hamilton@pedag.umu.se).
Notes
[1] The sixth century Rule of th e Bened ictine ord er of Monks includ e th e
stip ulation th at it is th e office of th e master to speak and to teach, and of the
d iscip le to keep silent and listen (q uoted in Southern, 1997, p. 195).
[2] Harsd rfers image of a funnel also ap p ears in th e works of Juan Luis Vives
(14921540). Crane writes: Vives also cautions teach ers to resp ect th e small
capacity of th e b oys minds, like a vessel with a narrow neck, which spits out
again the too large sup p ly of liq uid s wh ich th e teach er attemp ts to p our in.
Let instruction th erefore b e p oured in grad ually, drop by drop (Crane, 1993,
p . 65).
References
Atherton, C. (1998) Ch ild ren, animals, slaves and grammar, in Y. L. Too &
N. Livingstone (Ed s) Pedagogy and Power: rhetorics of classical learning.
Camb rid ge: Camb rid ge University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1971) On th e classification and framing of educational knowledge, in
M. F. D. Young (Ed .) Knowledge and Control: new directions for the sociology of
knowledge. Lond on: Collier-Macmillan.
Bernstein, B. (1975) Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 3: towards a theory of educational
transm issions. Lond on: Routled ge.
Blair, A. (1997) The Theater of Science: Jean Bodin and Renaissance science.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
149
DAVID HAMILTON
Callah an, R. E. (1962) Education and the Cult of Efficiency: a study of the forces that
have shaped the adm inistration of the public schools. Chicago: University of
Ch icago Press.
Comenius, J. A. (1896) The Great Didactic, translated by M. W. Keatinge. London:
Adam & Ch arles Black.
Comenius, J. A. (1953) The Analytical Didactic of Com enius, translated b y V. Jelenik.
Ch icago: University of Ch icago Press.
Comenius, J. A. (1986) Com enius Pam paedia, translated b y A. M. O. Dobb ie. Dover:
Buckland .
Crane, M. T. (1993) Fram ing Authority: sayings, self and society in sixteenth century
England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cruiksh ank, K. (1998) In Deweys shadow: Julia Bulkley and the University of
Ch icago Dep artment of Ped agogy, 18951900, History of Education Quarterly, 38,
p p . 374406.
Feinb erg, W. (1998) Com m on Schools/ Uncom m on Identities: national unity and
cultural difference. Lond on: Yale University Press.
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
150
WHY NO DIDACTICS IN ENGLAND?
Kennell, W. M. (1995) The Gym nasium of Virtue: education and culture in Ancient
Sparta. Ch ap el Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Klafki, W. (1995) Did actic analysis as th e core of preparation of instruction, Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 27, p p . 1330.
Kleibard, H. (1986) The Struggle for the Am erican Curriculum 18931958. New York:
Routled ge.
Mack, P. (1993) Renaissance Argum ent: Valla and Agricola in the traditions of
rhetoric and dialectic. Leid en: Brill.
Martial, I. K., von (1985) Geschichte der Didaktik. Frankfurt: Fischer.
McClintock, R. (1972) Toward a p lace for stud y in a world of instruction, Teachers
College Record, 73, p p . 161205.
McLaren, P. (1998) Life in Schools: an introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education (3rd ed n). New York: Longman.
Mich el, G. (1978) Die Welt als Schule: Ratke, Com enius und die Didaktische
Bewegung. Hannover: Sch roed el.
Monroe, P. (Ed .) (1913) A Cyclopaedia of Education. New York: Macmillan.
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
Murp h y, P. (1996) Defining p ed agogy, in P. Murp hy & C. Gipps (Eds) Equity in the
Classroom : towards effective pedagogy for boys and girls. London: Falmer Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rein, W. (189599) Encyclopdisches Handbuch der Pdagogik (c10 vols).
Langensalzer: Beyer.
Sch aller, K. (1992) Didaktik und Pd agogik im Werke des Johann Amos Comenius,
Der Evangelische Erz ieher, 92, p p . 2028.
Sch wab , J. J. (1978) The practical: a language for curriculum, in I. Westbury & N. J.
Wilkof (Ed s) Science, Curriculum and Liberal Education: selected essays.
Ch icago: University of Ch icago Press.
Selleck, R. J. W. (1968) The New Education: the English background 18701914.
London: Pitman.
Simon, B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds)
Education in the Eighties. Lond on: Batsford .
Simon, B. (1993) Review of curriculum organization and classroom practice in
p rimary sch ools: a d iscussion p ap er (Lond on: Department of Education and
Science, 1992), Curriculum Journal, 3, p p . 9197.
Simon, B. (1994) Some problems of pedagogy, revisited, in B. Simon (Ed.) The State
and Educational Change: essays in the history of education and pedagogy.
London: Lawrence & Wish art.
Simon, J. (1966) Education and Society in Tudor England. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith , J. & Hamilton, D. (1980) The Meritocratic Intellect: essays in the history of
educational research. Ab erd een: Ab erd een University Press.
South ern, R. W. (1997) Scholastic Hum anism and the Unification of Europe, Vol. 1.
Oxford : Blackwell.
Stenh ouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Developm ent and Research.
London: Heinemann.
Stone, L. (1965) The Crisis of the Aristocracy 15581641. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Turnbull, G. H. (1993) Th e ed ucational id eas of Wolfgang Ratke, Curriculum Studies,
1, p p . 383394.
151
DAVID HAMILTON
Uljens, M. (1997) School Didactics and Learning. Lond on: Psychology Press.
Downloaded by [186.80.248.51] at 10:44 13 August 2017
152