' ' . .. "PH" . I“ “I”; IIIIII III" 7I' “:11 .~_2:II~'I..-‘w~I '
II IIIIIIII'IIIIII ”III?“ IIIIII. .IIIII:.IIII “VI“. II“. I II" '. IIIIIII'; ' I III-Inn... WIIIIII f” I WWI III III 5| IIMI IIIII‘ SLIM“ II' II' III‘IIIIBII“ II'I' InI’I‘I I

. l I II .I “I p I L . I. . I l Iilr'Ii'
III. III. II III," ”II I ) IIII III.I’I "MEI III” IIIII'I ‘IHIII 'IIIII. IIIUI‘ .IIIII. .IIII II. II-IIIL, 151! III“...

. “I. III :III'nIIIr" I
IIIWIIIIII'IIIIIII IIIIIII‘I'I I II.EIIIIIIIII..I . IIIIIIIIIII'II IIII'i IIIIII .
. H. II'I ‘. I III-”III
II‘ I’III‘IIIIII‘T-D . IIUIIIH‘I .II fi‘nl"\. ’I’Ilf IIIIIIIII“IIII)IIIIIIIIIIIIII(1II‘III IIIIII'III‘IR‘ III, III“
II II .IIIII II . I. IIIIIIII
.II.

  
      
  
       
     
      

«IN I'.” III'IIIIII'II‘I IIIII-I IIIIIIIIIII’I IIII IIIII I“ IIIII'I‘II'I It'll“ III.‘ ‘ ”HI,

.II IIII'II' I” ”III II IIIIII IIIIIIIIII II I'II'II'II .IIII I. III‘IM l I.IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII

III IIIIIIIIIIII II I III 'III' "III II. II IIIIIIII IIIIIII II I I III .IIIIIIIIII
I' I 'I I I . I I I I I

III. .IIIIIII IIII.IIIIIII III’ II .I II II II ‘III.\IIIIIIIII'II IIIIIQIII. IIIIIIIII I'II IIIII

  

.IWIIIIIpq IIIIILII'I-‘III

I "I 1“!ij I IIIIIII
I'IIIIIItIII 'IIiIIII'IIIIIII .IIIIII‘II'III
I,” IIIIIIII I..‘I.fl!
I2 IIII'IIIII I IIIII‘III
I' II IIII IIIIHI. IIIII

   

 
  
 

 
   
 

ILIIIIIIIIIIIII.

   
     
  

‘2'

‘-
1i;
1’

w.

   
       
     
 
 
 
   
  
 

«‘5‘

_, -_

:\-V—. ‘~;.. .

$_
-_‘:—_Ir"—-
«fiw

M

IIIIIII' IIII IIIIIII- IIQIII IIIIIIIIIII IIMIII‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIII

II'II IIIII‘III I I.I.IIIIIIII..II..III III'IIIII I 'III
.I.. II'III'WIIII. IIII .IIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII VIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII'II/II
. I I IIMIIIII IIIIII'II I IIIIIIIII IIII.I III. .IIIIII .CI

.I "III'IIII

I W“ III I I ,
IIII'IIIIIIIIII III'. III ”III II‘IIIIIIIIII ‘IIIII IIIIII III I
IIII'. . .‘.I I I.‘ “III” III ”III "."II I .
‘..'..';.'.I.II,I ""IIIIIIIII" III/II III III .III IIIIIIIII .IIIII
I.‘.‘..'I.III.‘.':..'I"II" .. ‘I’II'I'I'I’I III III I III III III'.'I‘.II." IIIIIIIIII ' III
I II, ' " '

IIIII'II‘I'I I I'IIII’I' III]. I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

I IIIII III I III I 'I .‘III

  

 

. IJII II I‘III I
I II I|.III III III II III“ :III III III/III: -
IIIIIIIIIIIIII.’ I II‘II IIIIII‘IIII II. IIIII III'IIIII IIIIIIIII I'I.II IIII . IIIIIIII ISIII .IIIIIIII;I II _ m_
. II- I I .I I I.
.. .-.... '.II I , III.i-‘ .I'. I..,,‘I‘.II.'I.'. .. {III’IIII III III?! ' I???“
I.“I I..II’.IIIII1II IIIIIIIIII'III. III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII.I.I, IIIIIIIIII' I 3». III‘RIIIIH
.II":I".‘II'I'II"III " II." I... .IIIII'I'I.“ I. . .II'II..‘?II.‘.‘IIII“? ‘ ' III . " 3‘
.:.I.II I. . . III: 3'.» ‘I’I."‘;I‘I’I’ ‘ .I.‘ ' II.
III IIIIIIII III IIIII II ‘ I l
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII':. 'III II IIIIIIIIII'II. IIIIIIIIII) II I‘I.II’I I. II
IIIIII 'II III I I III III. IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIII .IIII .
II"I]III .I..I.'III III'I. . . IIIIIIIIII.‘ III IIII'IIII. IIII‘III I‘IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.- I

I... .
. II. . I)I.I.‘!IIIII .'. I'I'IIIIIII I I IIII'II' ... .II II.‘ IIIIIIII III II II.I-’ IIIIIII'II .I'. III, III:
.II'IIIIIIIIIII-I.III:|II,I.III I . II: 'II I
...II‘. "'"IIII'I’IIIIIIII-III IIII .. .i: 3'.“ .'IIIIIII IIII. IiIIII.I ..I I....II‘I'. ‘IIIIIII. I
II ‘ I I H

       
  
   

 

      
       
   

       
   
  
 
 

 

  

 

... III III .I'II.I.]I I'I‘II‘. i I:IIII In I‘ I-' .I
II.I..| . . . ". II .IIIII II .'I .I.~>‘ III.“ .IIIItI f, IIIIIIII IrIIIIIX
IIIIII.I'I.IIIII yIIIIIIIIIIIIII II.II‘ :jIIII,IIII.‘I!IIIL .I'.’ IIII'IIIIIII.iI.I;IIII1.I:IIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 5 I I
.I'I‘I I I II III .I III .I 'I.‘ II. III IIIL II fIII ‘III
II I I II - I II III ‘IIIIIIII.'III IIIIIM I51
II’ . I IIIII.I. I 1"II II I I .IIIIIII': I. IIIEI' III I. I. .I: .
. . 'I'-:... .III.'II 3‘.“
III I. I II II II» .I II I III I ‘ I) ‘f-‘I
.. . III... I. .-I III! III I £5.ng
I . I I I I .,II I. .’ I y ." .v' 4.
III . I I‘I. I' I ‘IIIIIIIII- II.I‘I'.7I"I'.I'I‘I I I II;I:
. .. . ,. ,-. «I
II IIIIIIII‘II III I II III .III II II I H II'IIIIIIII JF’I'III'“ III-é
I,.II I. IIIIIIIII: I IIII .IIIII II I I . . .. I I III IIII IIII 2”.qu .'
I I. . I...’ . . . "I.“ 'I-III. "' ;I,.IIIx'-..LI .LI'I.
” I‘ .III LI I‘I I,.I I
I .. . 'I..‘. I : I ‘ " ‘II‘IIIII‘IIIIIIIIIII “.I'II' ”III II .I1I. {VII .7
I I. I . IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII HIDII. II I III?” I'IJI
I.“ ..II. II I I . I. .. : .. I I l '. . . I III-I ‘ I ‘ .I ~ II III‘I‘II' IIIIII-IIIIII5I1IIIIIIIIJIHI ”$11“
I‘III . I . . . III,I-IIIIII II.I III‘III' I,".IIIIIIIII IIIIJ II'IIIII I. II IIIIIIIIJ' .IIIII {IIIK -II 'I‘IIIII{ {WW} :J
I IIIIIIIIII I II III I II II‘ I I .. III III II IIII'I“ .‘II' II I I IIII-I; I'LIII‘ IIIIII II II‘ IIIIIIII JI-IIII .l
I.I.‘.“|. II..I'I "IIII I.II, I III IIIIII
I‘IIIII IIIII I.I I I III III . .I-I..IIII' , III‘I'IIII‘ IIIHIII I.IIII|II|II.I IW .!'| .IIII‘InIIIII. ‘In (III III IIIJIirlT EI’IL' IE
. , II‘ I ..I I IIIII I III‘I I II I. . . " TII I I I I I I IIIIIIIIII . I'IIII I IIIIIIIIIII IIIII“. ”III ”II I.“ ’1”.le

. I",'..'I IIIIIII II' .IIIIIIIIIII
II III IIIIII .IIIIIIII II' I III .II' IIII,I‘II III II'IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII III. IIIIIIIIII‘ IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIII

. . " II . I ..I ['1 I I I I. I (IIII'IIIJII IILLLII III .II
. a... I.II III .. IIII I..I.III.II.II IIIIII (I'III': IIIIIIIIII IIIII gm II'I‘IIII III‘gIIII
III‘I ' -I'I‘ 'I I‘ 3 ._ ImII m... III|.IIIIIIII|I.I ”III .IIIII. I .III I IIIIII AlIII IA“ “If!” ‘L‘IMM

II II III'III . I IIII IIIIIII

 

   
     

Willi“ llfllllllflllllfl llllllmlllliflllzlll

293 10064 23

  

LIBRARY

. Michigan State
, University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF ROLES FOR THE TEACHER
FROM AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

presented by

Clyde Emerson de Bourg

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Foundations: Social

degree in Whical

 

/;é~c;/243: ,“
Carl H. Gross

 

Major professor

Date 12/17/79

0-7639

A STUDY OF ROLES FOR THE TEACHER

FROM AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

BY

Clyde Emerson de Bourg

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1980

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF ROLES FOR THE TEACHER
FROM AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

BY

Clyde Emerson de Bourg

The purpose of this study was first, to determine
what the conceptions of teachers' roles were in Ancient
Times, during the Sixteenth Century, and in Early Modern
Times; second, to compare and note changes in conceptions
of roles held by exemplars of each historical period with
respect to such areas of teaching as methods of instruc-
tion, discipline, moral training of students, and model-
ling; third, to determine which conceptions of roles
persisted throughout the periods under review; fourth, to
evaluate these roles in the light of modern pedagogy.

The method used was historical rather than empiri-
cal. Well-known educators of three historical periods,
namely Ancient Times, the Sixteenth Century, and Early
Modern Times, were selected as exemplars in order to
illustrate and exemplify different approaches to teaching.
Their conceptions of roles for the teacher were traced
back to the original sources. The theories on which these

educators based their conceptions of the teacher's roles

Clyde Emerson de Bourg

were examined and evaluated. Consideration was given to
the socio-cultural forces as well as the historical back-
ground of the times in which these exemplars lived.

The findings were that some role conceptions
changed over the three periods under review while others
persisted. The areas in which significant changes were
made in role conceptions were in instructional methods,
discipline, moral training of students, and modelling by
the teacher. Role conceptions for teachers persisted in
two areas: first, in teacher-student relationships, and
second, in the provision of the correct environment for
learning. Reasons for the change or persistence of roles
were suggested.

The study also revealed that there was not always
consensus of opinion regarding conceptions of roles for
the teacher even among educators who represented the same
historical period, and that despite inadequacies in their
general approaches to pedagogy, some exemplars of Ancient
Times and the Sixteenth Century had useful insights into

the psychology and methodology of teaching.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge indebtedness to Dr. Carl
Gross, my advisor, and to express my sincere thanks to him
for the great assistance, encouragement, and inspiration
which he gave me during my course work and in the writing
of this thesis. His scholarly advice and the patience he
showed will never be forgotten.

Appreciation and thanks are also due to Dr. J. G.
Moore for his careful reading of the chapters and his help-
ful suggestions for improving their organization and style.

Finally, I wish to thank the other members of my
guidance committee, Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, Dr. Keith Anderson,
and Dr. Henry Kennedy, for their constructive criticisms
which have proved helpful to me in the writing of this

thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I O I NT RODUCT ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
Purpose of This Study . . . . . . . . . . 2
Justification of the Study . . . . . . . . 2
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Limitations of This Study . . . . . . . . 5
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . 7

I I 0 SELECT ION OF ROLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O l o
Illustrations of Types Chosen . . . . . . 10
Reasons for Choice of Benchmarks . . . . . ll

0
o
N
\l

Reasons for Choice of Exemplars .

III. PERSISTENT ROLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

The Establishment of a Good Personal

Relationship Between Teacher and

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Providing the Correct Environment for

Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Suggested Reasons for the Persistence

of These Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

IV. CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF THE ROLES OF

TEACHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Methods of Instruction in Ancient Times . 58
Methods of Instruction in the Sixteenth

Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Methods of Instruction in Early Modern

Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Suggested Reasons for the Changes in

Role Conceptions in Instructions . . . . 72
Disciplinary Role of the Teacher in

Ancient Times . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Disciplinary Role of the Teacher in the

Sixteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Disciplinary Role of the Teacher in

Early Modern Times . . . . . . . . . . . 81

iii

Page

Suggested Reasons for Changes in
Teachers' Roles in the Domain of

Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Role of the Teacher as Model in

Ancient Times . . . . . . . . . . 88
Role of the Teacher as Model in the

Sixteenth Century . . . . . . . . . 92
Changes Made in Above Role in Early

Modern Times . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Suggested Reasons for Changes in the

Above Teacher' 3 Role . . . . . . 94
Role of the Teacher in the Child's Moral

Training in Ancient Times . . . 95
Role of the Teacher in the Child's Moral

Training in the Sixteenth Century . . . 96
Role of the Teacher in the Child's Moral

Training in Early Modern Times . . . . . 97

Suggested Reasons for Changes in the
Teacher's Approach to Moral Training . . 101

V. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 131

iv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Images that have been associated with the expecta-
tions of teachers' roles have been many and varied, largely
due to the fact that they are perceived differently by edu-
cators, parents, students, and others. It was Socrates who
compared the teacher to a midwife, because to Socrates, the
role of the teacher was to educe or draw forth knowledge
from his pupil. This maieutic concept of teaching was in
accordance with his belief that the human soul had a pre-
existence before birth, at which time it was imbued with
knowledge, which became partially forgotten when the soul
entered the body. To him, teaching was therefore a matter
of recovering this partially forgotten knowledge. More
recently, the role of the teacher had been compared to
that of a leader by the pragmatist, John Dewey, and others
of his philosophical persuasion who saw the teacher not as
a commander in charge, but as a senior member of a group,

a resource person, one who was expected to give assistance,
advice, and encouragement to students when needed. This
position contrasts strongly with the traditional conception

of the teacher as an authoritarian, who, by virtue of his

1

age and superior knowledge, was in supreme command of the
class. His role was to give orders, that of his students
to obey. Skinner, in keeping with his behaviouristic

philosophy, prefers to regard the teacher as a reinforcer,
while the therapist, Carl Rogers, perceives the teacher as

a facilitator of learning.

Purpose of This Study

 

The purpose of the study is first, to determine
what the conceptions of teachers' roles were in Ancient
Times, during the Sixteenth Century, and in Early Modern
Times; second, to compare and note changes in conceptions
of roles held by exemplars of each historical period with
respect to such areas of teaching as methods of instruc-
tion, discipline, moral training of students, and model-
ling; third, to determine which conceptions of roles
persisted throughout the periods under review; fourth,

to evaluate these roles in the light of modern pedagogy.

Justification of the Study

 

Much empirical research has been done in education
regarding roles of the teacher and the effects that they
have on the learning and behaviour of students. However,
little historical research has been done. This, therefore,
is the writer's rationale for undertaking the study from

an historical perspective. The writer believes that it is

by studying the past that one recognizes trends which can
be of help in predicting and preparing for the future.‘

Because this study provides an historical back-
ground for conceptions of teaching roles, and the philo-
sophical, social, and religious forces that influence
them, it is hoped that it will benefit future teachers who
need some foundation in the history of pedagogy. At the
same time, the writer hopes that his work will make some
contribution to the literature on teaching roles.

This study should also be of interest to educators,
because it traces historically the antecedents of many
concepts and practices in modern pedagogy. Teachers are
concerned about the effects different roles have on the
ieducational advancement of their students and relation-
ships with them; hence the writer examined a number of
teaching roles as conceived by representative exemplars

and discussed their implications for education.

Methodology

 

The writer's approach in this thesis was histori-
cal rather than empirical. The conceptions of teaching
roles held by exemplars chosen were traced back to their
original sources. In order to maintain objectivity in
interpretation of the primary sources and also to support
his arguments, the writer utilized additional material

taken from secondary sources.

An analysis of roles conceived for the teacher by
representative educators of Ancient Times, the Sixteenth
Century, and Early Modern Times was made. Well-known
educators were selected to illustrate and exemplify dif-
ferent approaches to teaching. These included Socrates,
Isocrates, Plato, and Quintilian, who represented the
ancient pedagogues; Ascham, Montaigne, Mulcaster, and the
Jesuits, who represented Sixteenth Century teachers;
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel, who represented Early
Modern pedagogy.

The theories on which the above educators based
their conceptions of the teacher's roles were examined
and evaluated. Some consideration was given to the socio-
logical and historical background of the times in which
these educators lived as well as the religious forces that
influenced their thinking.

Reasons for choice of exemplars and historical

benchmarks are given in Chapter II.

Sources
The primary sources that the writer used comprised
the educational treatise written by the representative
exemplars in which their pedagogical ideas were expounded
in detail. Since some of the exemplars wrote only in
their native language, which included German, Greek, and
French as was the case with Pestalozzi, Plato, and Rousseau,

the writer used the most reliable translations.

A large number of secondary sources was consulted.
These sources were found useful since they helped to clar-
ify the pedagogical ideas of the exemplars as well as
their conceptions of roles for the teacher. A list of
both primary and secondary sources is provided in the bib-

liography.

Limitations of This Study

 

This thesis is an historical and comparative study
of teaching roles held by educators of Ancient Times, the
Sixteenth Century, and Early Modern Times. It is not an
exhaustive study of the educational philosophies, prin-
ciples, and methodologies of the educators concerned,
although these areas have been dealt with to some extent,
since they contribute to an understanding of the topic.

There are limitations on the conceptions of teach-
ing roles since all roles could not be studied. By the
same token, all educators could not be selected. The
focus was placed on educators who contributed signifi-
cantly to educational theory and practice, especially
those who stated their positions regarding roles for the
teacher.

Since the entire history of pedagogy could not be
covered, certain periods were used as benchmarks. These
were Ancient Times, the Sixteenth Century, and Early
Modern Times. These periods were chosen because of their

significance in the history of pedagogy.

In View of the fact that the pedagogical history of
the entire Ancient World did not have much bearing on this
dissertation, the term "Ancient World," as used here,
focuses only on Greece and Rome as these were the impor-
tant areas in this time frame of educational history.
Countries like Ancient China, Israel, India, and Egypt
have been omitted because they have not played as great a
part in influencing the educational ideas of the western

world.

Definition of Terms
The term "role" is used rather loosely in education
today. However, in this dissertation, the writer has
adopted the definition offered by Wallens and Travers in

their article in Handbook of Research on Teaching entitled

 

"Analysis and Investigation of Teaching Methods." Accord-
ing to these researchers,
The term role is simply a pattern of behav-
iour shared by a group of teachers which is identi-
fiable and generally related in some way to the
learning process. The concept of a teacher's role
is also related to that of a teaching method.1
Examples of teaching roles include disciplinarian,
guide, facilitator of learning, and parent substitute.
The term "goals" may either refer to "aims" in
which case they are end-results of a generalized nature

which the teacher hopes to achieve through his teaching;

or they may refer to behavioural objectives in which case

they are specific statements which describe the behaviour
the student will be expected to display after a learning
experience.

"Philosophy of education" refers to a system of
beliefs held by educators with respect to such areas of
education as metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology.

The term "Ancient Times" as used in this disser-
tation includes only the period that lasted from the fifth
century B.C. to the disintegration of the Roman Empire in
the west in 476 A.D. "Early Modern Times" refers to the
period that lasted from the beginning of the eighteenth

century to the middle of the nineteenth.

Organization of the Study
In Chapter II teaching roles are categorized and
described. Illustrations of each category are furnished.
Reasons are advanced for the choice of historical bench-
marks used in the study as well as the choice of exemplars.
The philosophies on which the exemplars based their con-
ceptions of roles for the teacher are examined. In

Chapter III the writer deals with persistent roles of the

 

teacher. These are traced historically to the educators
who advocated them. Reasons for the persistence of these
roles are given. Conceptions of roles which have changed
from Ancient Times to the Early Modern era are examined

in Chapter IV. The focus is on such areas of teaching as

 

instructional methods, discipline, the moral training of
students, and modelling by the teacher. Reasons for the
changes in role conceptions are suggested. A general
summary of the dissertation as well as an evaluation of
the roles advocated by the representative exemplars is

presented in Chapter V. Conclusive remarks are made.

Footnote-—Chapter I

1"Analysis and Investigation of Teaching Methods,"
in Handbook_of Research oaneaching, ed. N. L. Gage
(Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 196 ), p. 449.

 

CHAPTER II

SELECTION OF ROLES

Illustrations of Types Chosen

Two different categories of roles are referred to
in this study. These are persistent and changing concep-
tions of roles. Since the writer acknowledges that there
may be differences of opinion regarding the meaning of
these terms, some further explanation is therefore fur-
nished. The term "persistent roles” refers to roles that
endured from Ancient to Early Modern Times. To use an
illustration from the realm of medical science, cancer
may be regarded as a persistent disease, because it has
afflicted people from Ancient Times to the present. By
contrast, smallpox, which was once prevalent in many
countries of the world, is no longer a persistent disease,
having been eradicated by medical science. The term
"changing roles" refers to patterns of teacher behaviour
which have been replaced by different forms of behaviour
from Ancient Times to the Early Modern era. For example,
conceptions of teaching roles have changed from authori-
tarian in Ancient Times to facilitator of learning in
Early Modern Times; from indoctrinator in Ancient Times,
to one who encourages self-directed learning in Early

10

11

Modern Times. Finally, "changing roles" in this disser-

tation does not indicate that the roles are irreversible.

Reasons for Choice of Benchmarks
Three periods were chosen as benchmarks in this
study. These were Ancient Times (500 B.C. to 476 A.D.),
the Sixteenth Century, and Early Modern Times (1700 to

1850). Reasons for their selection will now be advanced.

Ancient Times

 

Ancient Times was chosen because it was the period
during which civilization advanced to great heights in
Ancient Greece and Rome. Areas in which considerable
advancements were made included philosophy, politics,
architecture, and engineering. Since the accomplishments
of the Ancient Greeks and Romans in philOSOphy are most
pertinent to this dissertation, this aspect of their civi-
lization will be dealt with first.

Ancient Greece was the birthplace of philosophy.
This discipline thrived here not only because of the love
of the Greeks for learning as the word "philosophy" signi-
fies but because the gods whom these ancient people wor-
shipped and revered expected them to live virtuous lives.

The wise men of Ancient Greece endeavoured to
determine what constituted the virtuous life; hence
philosophy developed. The virtues which were identified

and held in high esteem were justice, prudence, fortitude,

12

and temperance. These were called the cardinal virtues
because they were considered fundamental to morality.
Ancient Greece was the birthplace of great philosophers
as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Plato's reverence for the virtues was so intense
that this was reflected in most of his writings. The
Republic, his most renowned educational treatise, centers
on the question of what justice is, and how best it could
be applied to his hypothetical state. Since the virtues
were held in such high esteem by the Ancient Greek philoso-
phers, the controversial question arose as to whether they
could be taught. Aristotle's answer to this question was
in the negative while Socrates argued affirmatively. It
was probably Socrates' concern for the teaching of virtues
that led him to deveIOp his famous approach to pedagogy
known as the Socratic Method. Aristotle wrote on poli-
tics, ethics, physics, and metaphysics.

Interest in philosophy led to the growth of philo-
sophical schools, which had great influence on education.
Thus Plato founded the Academy; Aristotle founded the
Lyceum; Zeno, the school of the Stoics; and Epicurus, the
Epicurean school. Schools of rhetoric were also founded
in Greece and Rome.

The people of Ancient Greece and Rome were leaders
in the fields of politics and law. Democracy was first

practised in the Greek city states. Many of the democratic

13

principles observed in the Western WOrld today such as

the rights and responsibilities of citizens and protection
of property by law could be traced back to Ancient Greece.
Roman law contributed greatly to modern law, for the legal
systems of many countries today are based on the laws of
Ancient Rome.

The Ancient WOrld also made valuable contributions
to medicine, architecture, and engineering. Hippocrates,
the famous Greek doctor who lived approximately 400 B.C.,
is still considered as the father of medicine. Greek and
Roman architecture won the respect and admiration of the
world. The Parthenon in Athens with its beautiful sculp-
turing and the amphitheatre of Rome are notable examples
of Ancient architecture.

Although the Ancient Egyptians did not contribute
as much to modern pegagogy as did Greece and Rome, credit
must be given them for their skill in engineering. Such
notable monuments as the pyramids and the Sphinx testify
to the high level of engineering technology attained by

these people.

The Sixteenth Century

The Sixteenth Century was chosen as a benchmark
because events which took place within that time frame
exercised important influences on education. To begin

with, this period saw the decline of scholasticism, which

14

was the intellectual movement designed to strengthen the
Church and its doctrines by the application of reason to
faith. well-known exponents of this method were St. Thomas
Aquinas and Albertus Magnus.

The Sixteenth Century also witnessed the waning
of medievalism with many of its associated features such
as decrease in the power and influence of the Church in
such areas as education and politics. Citizens were
beginning to question the Church in matters of doctrine,
which led to a decrease in faith in ecclesiastical author-
ity. Stability came back to Europe in the Sixteenth Cen-
tury. Cities were being built and advancements were made
in the art of navigation.

The two greatest historical events which char-
acterized this period were the Renaissance and the Refor-
mation. The Renaissance or "rebirth" was a concerted
attempt by man to free himself from authority in his
social, political, and intellectual life. During the
Middle Ages, there was a tendency for man to think of him-
self as part of a group. His way of life, attitudes, and
behaviour were in accordance with tradition. During the
Renaissance, however, man's class in society became less
important for greater emphasis was placed upon individu-
ality and man's worth was judged on his merit rather than

on his societal class.

15

The Renaissance was marked by a revival of inter-
est in Greek and Roman culture, the subjective world of
the emotions, and the natural world. The areas of inter-
est included art and sculpturing, literature, and methods
of analysis. Italy was perhaps the most famous for
Renaissance art and sculpturing perfected by such cele-
brated men as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. In
literature, Petrarch and Boccaccio were leaders.

There were three important developments in the
Renaissance: the intellectual, which embraced the human-
istic aSpect; the scientific; and the aesthetic. Since
the humanistic aspect of the Renaissance is of greater
relevance to this dissertation, it will be discussed at
greater length. Humanism was the movement which placed
its main emphasis upon man, promoted his freedom, devel-
oped his individuality, and led him to appreciate life to
a fuller extent. In keeping with this emphasis on indi-
viduality, humanistic educators recognized the need to
adapt the subjects taught to the age, aptitude. and inter-
est of the individual learner. Humanistic educators pro-
moted liberalism in education based on the seven liberal
arts taught by the Greeks. The humanists later failed in
their intentions to provide a broadly based education, for
humanistic education came to be synonymous with the teach-
ing of classical languages so common in European schools

at the middle of the nineteenth century.

16

The Reformation was primarily geared towards
bringing about reforms in the Roman Catholic Church.
According to Mulhern, there were four causes: economic,
social, political, and intellectual.1 The intellectual
ramifications are of greater importance to this study.

As a result of the revival of learning, men became more
independent in their thinking and at the same time relied
less on authority. According to Mulhern, "it was the
spirit of free inquiry and man's right to reason, which
the humanists espoused, which linked the humanist movement
and its scholarship to the work of the reformers."2 Some
of the most prominent reformers were Martin Luther, John
Calvin, Philip Melanchthon, and John Knox.

The invention of printing helped to precipitate
the Reformation because books became more easily available,
so that men were able to read about the Church in the first
century and compare it with regard to organization, struc-
ture, and leadership in the Sixteenth. The information
they obtained made them conclude that the Church of the
Sixteenth Century was not meeting the needs of the times
nor was it providing the leadership which the laity of the

earlier centuries enjoyed.

Early Modern Times
Early Modern Times, which extended from the eigh-

teenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, was

17

characterized by man's espousal of ideologies which had
significant implications for education. These included
Rationalism, Romanticism, Naturalism which led to Humani-
tarianism, and Nationalism. Each of these will be dis-
cussed in some detail. Nationalism was a concerted
attempt by European countries to foster pride and loyalty
to the state by severing ties from foreign domination in
their political, economic, and religious affairs. In
order to achieve their goals, national systems of educa-
tion were organized in such countries as Prussia, France,
Russia, and England so as to place emphasis on the study
of the national language as well as the history, culture,
and literature of the homeland. To promote group feel-
ings, citizens were constantly reminded of their common
heritage and descent, tradition, history, religion, and
economic interests. The good citizen was characterized as
the person who manifested patriotic qualities like loyalty,
obedience, and service to the state.

Another popular ideology, namely Rationalism,
taught that the world was completely subjected to natural
law, which if discovered by man will enable him to control
his own destiny. Accordingly, the rationalists rejected
everything that they regarded as supernatural, including
revealed religion, since they thought that the latter was

contrary to natural law. As would be expected, the

18

proponents of this ideology--Voltaire, Diderot, and the
Encyclopedists--came into conflict with the Church.

Rationalism led to Naturalism, the philosophy
espoused by Rousseau and others, which claimed that there
was goodness in general in nature, hence all human beings
were born good. Rousseau's belief in Naturalism influ-
enced his conception of the role of the teacher to a con-
siderable extent. Humanitarianism was a by-product of
Naturalism. In education it promoted a new approach in
the relationship of the teacher to the child, for Humani-
tarianism emphasized respect for the individuality of the
pupil and more humane methods of discipline.

It was the teachings of naturalists, especially
Rousseau, which contributed to the French Revolution, a
movement which championed the rights of the common man
against oppression by the French nobility with such emo-
tional slogans as liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Romanticism contrasted strongly with Rationalism
in many ways. The romantics did not subscribe to the view
that nature was governed by intrinsic laws. Instead, they
regarded nature as a mysterious force which was incompre-
hensible to man but with which he could nonetheless empa-
thize and form an emotional attachment. In addition, the
rationalists believed that through reason, man could mas-
ter his environment and make a better life for himself.

The romantics, on the other hand, did not subscribe to

19

this belief but claimed instead that man could never
achieve the power to control the universe. According to
their way of thinking, man was governed more by his feel-
ings than by his intellect.

Another rationale for choosing Early Modern Times
as a benchmark was that during this period the impact of
the pedagogical ideas of Pestalozzi and Froebel was first
felt. These ideas, some of which were closely allied with
Naturalism, had implications for the role of the teacher.

These included Pestalozzi's concept of Anscha-uung, Froebel's

 

laws of unity, self-activity, and development or unfolding;
and the naturalists' views of human nature. These concepts
will now be described in more detail. The writer will
define Naturalism, to which earlier references had been

made, by quoting from Good's Dictionary of Education.

 

Naturalism as formulated by Rousseau was a revolt
against the artificialities of eighteenth-century
French life, it emphasized a return to the "natu-
ural," that is, the hypothetical primitive social
state, recognized the existence of natural develop-
mental stages in the child, levels of readiness,
individual differences and other elements of modern
progressive education; stressed the necessity of
education in harmony with natural human development,
learning by activity and experience, self-imposed
discipline, individualization of instruction, devel-
Opment of moral character from within, by experience,
rather than from without, by indoctrination; anti-
thetical to eighteenth-century theology on the one
hand and to rationalism on the other.

It is advisable at this juncture to show how the
conception of human nature held by the three Early Modern

exemplars was influenced by Naturalism.

20

Rousseau's concept of human nature.--One of the
chief reasons for Rousseau's revolutionary changes in
approach to teaching (in keeping with his adherence to
Naturalism) was his conception of the child at birth.

The Church had espoused the belief in inherent depravity,
because of original sin, as a direct result of Adam's
rebellion against God and the loss of sanctifying grace.
Rousseau rejected this belief, claiming instead that the
child was innately good. So firmly did he hold this
belief that he used it as the fundamental tenet on which
his principles of education were based and as the Opening
statement of his thought-provoking treatise, the Emile:
"God makes all things good; man meddles with them and

they become evil."4 In Book II of the same treatise, he
reiterated: "Let us assume as an incontestable maxim that
the first movements of nature are always right; there is
no original perversity in the human heart."5

The implications for the role of the teacher,
based on these two statements, seem obvious, since they
suggest that he should refrain from attempting to correct
the natural impulses of the child and try instead to use
nature as his guide. This approach and its ramifications
for teaching will be discussed in more detail later.

Pestalozzi's concept of human nature.--Pestalozzi

 

held with great conviction the theory of innate goodness

in man. This was attributable to his naturalistic

21

tendencies as was the case with Rousseau and Froebel.
In addition, Pestalozzi held a genetic conception of
man, comparing human development to the growth of a tree
from a seed which he believed contained all the poten-
tialities for its development to maturity. But just as
the tree needed the proper environment to grow healthily,
so too man needed the proper environment to realize his
potentials. Because of the many parallels seen by this
educator in the growth and development of the child and
the seedling, Pestalozzi exhorted parents and teachers to
imitate nature from which he thought much could be learned.
Man, imitate the actions of Nature who, out of the
seed of the largest tree first produces a scarcely
perceptible shoot, then, just as imperceptibly,
daily and hourly by gradual stages, unfolds first
the beginning of the stem, then the boughs, then
the branch, then the extreme twig on which hangs
the perishable leaf. Consider carefully this
action of great Nature-—how she tends and perfects
every single part as it is formed, and joins on 6
every new part to the permanent growth of the old.
The above quotation reveals Pestalozzi's concep-
tion of nature as "unfolding." As will be seen with
Froebel, he also subscribed to the view that development
took place in the direction inside-outwards, which was
contrary to that held by Sixteenth Century educators.
Since Pestalozzi adhered to the theory that each
individual is composed of mind, body, and spirit, he
attempted to devise methods of teaching apprOpriate to

the natural growth of the child, intellectually, physi--

cally, and spiritually.

22

In this quotation he affirmed his belief in the

spiritual nature of man:

The animal instinct is a principle which knows no

higher object than self. Self-preservation is

the first point which it tries to secure; and in

its progressive desire of enjoyment, self is still

the centre of its agency. It is not the same with

the mind, or with the affections of the heart.

The fact which speaks most unquestioningly for the

spiritual nature of man, is the sacrifice of per-

sonal comfort or enjoyment, for the happiness of

others; the subordination of individual desire,

to higher purposes.7

Froebel's concept of human nature.--Froebel was in

agreement with Rousseau and Pestalozzi in his belief in
the innate goodness of man. Like Rousseau, he rejected
the Christian concept of original sin, claiming that man
was pure when he came from the hands of God. Since God
his Creator is Himself perfect, it was logical to con-
clude that He could not create a morally corrupt indi-
vidual. This belief in man's inherent goodness is elo-

quently affirmed in a quotation taken from The Education

 

of Man:

For surely, the nature of man is in itself good,
and surely there are in man qualities and tenden-
cies in themselves good. Man is by no means
naturally bad, nor has he originally had or evil
qualities and tendencies, unless, indeed we con-
sider as naturally evil, bad and faulty the finite,
the material, the transitory, the physical. . . .
Whoever then considers that which is finite mate-
rial, physical as in itself bad, thereby expresses
contempt for creation, nature as such--nay he
actually blasphemes God.8

Froebel even rejected the neutral viewpoint of man

as being born neither good nor bad and condemned this

23

conviction as an act of treason. He pointed out that the
evil and shortcomings of man were not there initially,

but were caused by conflicts arising from suppressed or
perverted good qualities.9 Other fundamental principles
of the above educators which had bearings on their concep-
tions of roles for the teacher will now be discussed.

Froebel's law of unity.--In Froebel's view, the

 

universe comprised a great unit in which there was no
division between the realm of spirit and the realm of

10 In this

nature, nor between an individual and society.
view he was influenced by Schelling, who sought for a
principle that would reduce the whole of nature to a
unity. Froebel's religious convictions strengthened his
philosophical obsession with the concept of a unifying
force in the world of spirit and nature, for since God was
the Creator of what seemed to him to be an organized uni-
verse, it was logical to think that all things therein
must be a part of a great unit, with each being or object
11

having a part to play in the scheme of things. The open-

ing chapter of his chief work in education, The Education

 

of Man, reveals the importance which he attached to this
principle of unity. According to Froebel,

This Unity is God. All things come from the Divine
Unity, from God, and have their origin in the Divine
Unity, in God alone. God is the sole source of all
things. In all things there lives and reigns the
Divine Unity, God. All things live and have their
beingzin and through the Divine Unity, in and through
God. .

24

God was thus seen by Froebel as the guiding spirit
and the ultimate goal of all existence. Since all things
found their unity with God, Froebel saw as the life work
of each individual, a striving to become conscious of-
this unity.13 Accordingly, it was only when this unity
was attained that the individual felt fulfilled. Hence
the aim of education as Froebel saw it was to help the
child realize this unity.l4 So obsessed was the latter
educator with this concept that he saw unity in the pro-
cess of growth and evolution to higher forms in nature;
he saw unity between man and God, nature and man; he saw
unity between man's physical, intellectual, and spiri—
tual powers and between knowing, feeling, and acting.

Froebel's law of self-activity.--Just as Froebel's
fundamental educational laws were based on the theory of
unity and inner-connectedness, his educational process was
based on self—activity. Self-activity, as the term
implies, suggests that the motive and impulses that cause
the child to act, originate from the child himself and
become the driving force behind the education process.

As such, the child becomes involved in his own self-
initiated activity with only the guidance of the teacher
whose role it is, according to Castle, "to provide the
situations and materials that induce children to be

actively engaged, whether in play or otherwise in activities

25

directed towards a desired end."15 As Monroe aptly

explains it:

Thus for the school, self-activity means this

desire of the child to enter into the life of

others and the life around it; the desire to

help, find out, to discover, to participate in

common activities, to create, to discover the

identity or connection between itself and the

activities and processes of others--the discov-

ery which constitutes knowledge.16

The importance of self-activity as a doctrine of

interest in school work is clearly brought out in the
above statement. In whatever form it may take, this
desire on the part of the child to know his environment
and become a part of life around him is of great impor-
tance in his education. Moreover, self-activity trains
the child to act independently and forms the basis of dis-
cipline or self-discipline, which is the goal that educa-

tion should strive to attain.

Pestalozzi's principle of Anschauung.--The prin-

 

ciple of Anschauung constitutes one of Pestalozzi's great-

 

est contributions to education. Since it has ramifica-
tions for his conception of the role of the teacher, some
attention will be given to the term here, bearing in mind
that because Pestalozzi used the term loosely, some confu-
sion has arisen from it. The term is reminiscent of the

principle of tabula rasa propounded by John Locke, based

 

on the Aristotelian theory that everything that is in the

mind came there by way of the senses. According to Romana

26

Walch, Pestalozzi used the term “to describe each of five
different methods of acquiring knowledge through sense
impressions."l7 Robert Rusk describes it as "the imme-
diate experience of objects or situations."18

Pestalozzi saw the principle as having ramifica-
tions in both the academic and moral domain. In the aca-
demic sphere, according to Boyd, "a lesson in which the
child sees, handles, or otherwise makes direct acquaint-

ance with an object is an Anschauung lesson: Anschauung

 

 

enters into a geography lesson, for example, when the

pupil sees natural phenomena or places for himself instead
of merely hearing about them, or learning about them from
diagrams."19

In the moral Sphere, Anschauung operates when a

 

child experiences situations in which, for example, he may
be shown love, or compassion by others, or one in which he
himself is moved to empathize with another person who is
experiencing some misfortune.

From all this, it is clear that it is incumbent
upon the teacher to provide direct experiences for the
child whenever possible, if learning is to make an indel-
ible impression on his mind and lessons be better under-
stood. This was Pestalozzi's protest against the

abstractions associated with the pedagogy of his day.

27

Reasons for Choice of Exemplars

The writer has selected a number of educators
whose conceptions of the role of the teacher have had
profound impact on pedagogy for the three historical
periods covered by this study. These include Isocrates
(393-338 B.C.), Socrates (469-399 B.C.), Plato (427-
347 B.C.), and Quintilian (35-97 A.D.), who represent the
pedagogues of Ancient Times; Roger Ascham (1515-1568),
Michel Montaigne (1533-1592), Richard Mulcaster (1531-
1611), and the Jesuits (16th—18th century), who represent
Sixteenth Century educators; Rousseau (1712-1778), Pesta-
lozzi (1746-1827), and Froebel( 1782-1852), representa-
tives of Early Modern Times. V

Plato has been chosen as an exemplar of Ancient.
Times because of his outstanding contribution to the
philosophy of education through the books he wrote. First
and foremost, the Republic, which Rousseau called "the
greatest treatise on education ever written,"20 the 2225!

the Lache, the Symposium, and the Meno. Plato had such a

 

high esteem for education that in the Republic he rated it
as "the grandest and most beautiful subject"21 and in the
L333 he repeated that "it is the first and fairest thing
that the best of men could ever have."22 So impressed was
Emerson with the Republic that he declared "burn the

libraries for their value is in this book."23

28

Plato was very much concerned with the role of the
teacher; hence much of his writings were devoted to this
subject. For example, the teacher was seen as an authori—
tarian and strict disciplinarian in the Eggg, and as an
indoctrinator in the Republic.

So convinced was Plato that it was the business of
the state of educate the people that he gave this subject
extensive coverage in the Republic, where he proposed a
structure for education and a curriculum of studies for
the entire population of artisans, guardians, and rulers.

Isocrates was selected because of his advocacy of
roles for the teacher particularly in such areas as dis-
cipline and relationships between the teacher and student.
Isocrates acquired a great deal of experience as a teacher,
having remained in the teaching profession until he was
ninety-seven years old, and this experience would qualify
him to assign roles.

For the wisdom that he bequeathed to the world
from his practical experience as an educator, and for his

illuminating books on education, namely Against the

 

Sophists and Antidosis, Isocrates deserves merit. Though

 

his main field was rhetoric, his teaching methodology had
widespread application to other subjects as well. He has
been called by many "the most famous schoolmaster of

antiquity."24

29

Socrates was selected because of the impact he
made on the history of pedagogy through his introduction
of a dialectical form of questioning known as the Socratic
Method, which has implications for the role of the teacher.
This methodology cannot be ignored because it is still
believed by some educators to produce intellectually alert
students and rated as a valid approach to teaching. It
is also worth mentioning that the Socratic Method is the
basis of the modern emphasis on the discovery method of
teaching. .

Socrates wrote no books, hence he did not make any
literary contribution, but his ideas have been written
down for posterity by his pupil Plato in many of his dia-
logues.

To Socrates, teaching was a way of life. So
obsessed was he with it that he took a delight in being
the proverbial "gadfly," questioning those in his vicinity
about supposedly simple concepts which they believed they
knew, only to be convinced of their ignorance later.

Though his methodology has aroused some contro-
versy in modern educational circles, the fact that it is
still practised today testifies to the impact that Soc-
rates has made in the field of teaching. For these
reasons, he could not be ignored as an exemplar.

Because he was "the most prominent of Roman writers

on education"25 and an educator who had much insight

30

concerning the role of the teacher, Quintilian was chosen
as a representative of Ancient Times.

For twenty years, Quintilian had been a most suc-
cessful and devoted teacher of rhetoric. He was so devoted
to his calling that he made it his goal to produce the per-
fect orator. His theories of education and his concep-
tions of the teacher's role were regarded as criteria to
be followed in Latin grammar schools for centuries.

Quintilian was one of the few highly admired teach-
ers of his time, and for this reason he enjoyed imperial
favour. According to Castle, "his persistent practicality
which kept his precepts always within the range of any
good schoolmaster places him high among the great teach-
ers."26 I

Numbering among his accomplishments was his famous

work, Institutio Oratoria (Education of an Orator), con-

 

sisting of twelve books. This work not only contains
Quintilian's concepts of the teacher's role, but also
rules to be observed in oratory. It received universal
acclaim as "the most complete treatise on Roman education
ever written."27
Last, since the pedagogy of Ancient Times embraces
both Greece and Rome in this dissertation, the writer
wanted at least one Roman educator to match the three

Greek exemplars chosen. No better one could be found

than Quintilian.

31

Montaigne had great insights into the educational
methodology which was to become later, the hallmark of
the naturalistic approach to teaching. This is illus-
trated clearly in "his insistence on things before words,
judgment and understanding before memory, adaptation of
instructions to the pupils' present ability."28

Moreover, insights into his conceptions of the
teacher's role could be gleaned from his famous works,
Essays on Pedantry and The Instruction of Children.

Mulcaster's choice as one of the Sixteenth Cen-
tury educators was based primarily on two important quali-
fications he possessed: the fact that he was a worthy
representative of humanism in education and his lengthy
experience as a schoolmaster who showed much concern about
the role of the teacher. Quick describes him as "one of
the most famous of English schoolmasters, who by his writ-
ings proved that he was far in advance of the schoolmas-
ters of his own time and of the times which succeeded."29

As a humanist teacher, he encouraged the spirit of
free inquiry among his students and emphasized the role of
the teacher in fostering a good personal relationship with
his students.

Mulcaster's intuitive understanding of child psy-
chology, a subject which was still in its embryonic stage

during his time, was remarkable. Moreover, he recognized

such concepts as levels of cognitive development,

32

individual differences among students, and readiness,
all of which have implications for the role of the teacher
with regard to teaching methodology. According to Quick,
"when we read his books, we find that wisdom which we are
importing in the nineteenth century offered us by an
English schoolmaster in the sixteenth."30
Because of the enormous contribution they made to

education as school teachers in Europe during the Six-
teenth and Seventeenth Centuries, the Jesuits were chosen
as representatives. The Jesuits were one of a number of
teaching orders associated with the Roman Catholic Church.
Their conceptions of the role of the teacher deserve con-
sideration because of their devotion to the profession,
which won them universal acclaim and distinction. Their
popularity was attested by William Boyd in his historical
account of their educational institutions.

In every part of the land they had flourishing col-

leges and universities, the latter attended by such

numbers of students that even the university of

Paris was seriously affected. In the middle of the

century they had 14,000 pupils under instruction in

the province of Paris alone; by the end of the cen-

tury, their colleges, exclusive of universities,

numbered 612 . 3

Much of what the Jesuits had to contribute to the

conception of the teacher's role was in the area of human
relationships and methods of instruction. Being clerics,

they were particularly concerned about establishing rap—

port between teacher and student, and because of their

33

meticulous attention to methodology, they were interested
in finding methods of instructions that suited their
goals.
A tribute to their excellence as teachers comes
from William Boyd, who maintains that:
Concerning the excellence of the Jesuit colleges,
there has never been serious question. Even oppo-
nents who had no sympathy with the other activi-
ties of the order, and who had distrusted the
social effects of its educational work, recognized
the Jesuits as masters of the art of education.3
Roger Ascham merited selection because of his
concern for the role of the teacher as a humanist and as
an educator himself. According to Williams, he was "much
the best known English teacher of this century,"33 meaning
the Sixteenth Century.

His contribution to education includes several

books, notably The Schoolmaster, in which Ascham illus-

 

trates and expounds his methodology in teaching Latin.
The book is interesting and remarkable for his psycho-
logical insights into the art of teaching, the problem
of discipline in the classroom, the effects of praise and
blame in the teaching situation, and the importance of
the role of the teacher in establishing good relationships
with students.

Ascham's treatise on method has received the
recognition of many educators. According to Monroe,

"Ascham's treatise on method has been considered not only

34

the best of his time but has often been pronounced the
best of any time."34

Hence, for his devotion to humanism, which exer-
cised great influence in shaping his ideas on education,
and his contribution to teaching methodology and the role
that the teacher was eXpected to play in the education of
the child, Ascham was included.

No name stands out so prominently in the history
of pedagogy as that of Jean Jacques Rousseau. His revo-
lutionary theories on education so captivated the minds
of educators that they were forced to pause and question
themselves and their role as teachers.

Rousseau caused this revolution in pedagogy pri-
marily through his writings, for he himself had "little

"35 His educational ideas

or no experience in teaching.
were expressed at great length in his treatise entitled
the Emlle, and to a lesser extent in his Nouvelle Héloise
and Considerations on the Government of Poland. No better
glowing tribute could be paid to Rousseau as an educator
than that expressed by the well-known educational his-
torian, William Boyd, who made the following assessment
of the Emlle:

I believe further, that the Emlle_with all its

faults is the most profound modern discussion of

the fundamentals of education, the only modern

work of its kind worthy to be put alongside the
Republic of Plato.36

35

Rousseau's theories had great relevance for the
role of the teacher. In fact, the impact made by the
Emlle was that it caused the teacher to see himself in a
new light. No longer was he to treat the child as a mini-
ature adult; no longer was he to "look for the man in the
child,"37 but to respect each developmental stage in its
own right, for as Rousseau himself said, "every stage,
every station in life has a perfection of its own."38
The teacher was no longer encouraged to be an authori-
tarian but a guide and a facilitator of learning.

Pestalozzi, who earned the title of "father of
modern pedagogy," merited selection as one of the Early
Modern exemplars, because of the new light he shed on the
conception of the role of the teacher. Pestalozzi was not
just an educational theorist but a teacher as well. This
position he held for many years. This afforded him ample
opportunities for putting into practice the theories on
'education which he formulated, but more importantly, this
qualified him for formulating theories on what the role
of the teacher should be.

Pestalozzi's two important treatises on education,

namely How Gertrude Teaches Her Children and Leonard and

 

Gertrude, had considerable impact in changing the concep-
tion of the role of the teacher from an authoritarian
figure to that of a gardener, or a surrogate parent who

took over the education of the child from the biological

36

parent. These conceptions of the teacher's role led to
an approach to teaching that was based on love and under-
standing. Moreover, it led to the psychologizing of
education and new perceptions of the child.

Friedrich Froebel stands out conspicuously as an
Early Modern educator. He is most famous as the founder
of the kindergarten and for his conception of the teacher's
role as that of a dialectical gardener, but he has made
other outstanding contributions to education as well.
According to Monroe,

Some of the most profound changes in educational
thought and practice of the present time are in
accord with, if not in response to the demands for-
mulated by Froebel. . . . Whether the emphasis in
school work is placed upon the activities of the
child, rather than upon the technique of the pro-
cess of instruction, and whether development of
character and of personality is sought, rather than
mere imparting of information, and the training of
intellectual abilities, there the Froebelian influ-
ence is to be recognized.

Froebel's conceptions of the role of the teacher
have widespread implications for the education of the
child in many areas of teaching, including instructions,
discipline, and moral training.

The compliment paid to Froebel by Monroe for his
achievements in education is worth noting. As Monroe
observed,

Froebel possessed a power which few reformers

have evinced . . . that of crystallizing theory
into practice, of interpreting general principles
in concrete form, of both stating the philosophy

and organizing the practical application of new
educational doctrines.

37

Footnotes--Chapter II

lJames Mulhern, A History of Education (New York:
The Ronald Press Co., 1959), p. 308.

21bid., p. 314.

3Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education('New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959). p. 360.

4Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara
Foxley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Everyman's Library,
1976), p. 5.

SIbid., p. 56.

6Gerald Lee Gutek, Pestalozzi and Education
(Chicago: Random House, 1968), p. 82.

7Robert Rusk, A Historyiof Infant Education
(London: University of London Press, Ltd., 1967), p. 5.

 

8Friedrich Froebel, The Education of Man, trans.
W. N. Hailman (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1895),
p. 120.

9Ibid., p. 121.

 

loIbid., p. 1.

llIbid., p. 2.

12Ibid., p. 1.

13Ibid., p. 5.

14Ibid.

15E. B. Castle, The Teacher (Oxford University
Press, 1970), P. 131.

16Paul Monroe, A Text Book in the History of Edu-
cation (New York: Macmillan, 1953), p. 657.

17Mary Romana Walch, Pestalozzi and the Pestaloz-
zian Theory of Education (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1952), p. 98.

18Robert Rusk, The Doctrines of the Great Educators
(London: Macmillan, 1962), p. 193.

 

 

 

 

 

38

19William Boyd, The History 9f Western Education
(London: Adam and Charles Black, 1950), P. 324.

20Rousseau, op. cit., p. 8.

21Plato, The Republic, trans. Francis Cornford
(Oxford: University Press, 1976),'section 599.

22Plato, Laws, in lpe Dialogues of Plato, trans.
Benjamin Lowett (Chicago: 1970), section 644.

23Will Durant, The Story of PhiIOSOphy (New York:
Simon and Schuster Publishers, 1930), p. 10}

24Edward Power, Main Currepts ipthe History of
Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19705. p. 114.

25

 

 

Ibid., p. 112.

26Castle, op. cit., p. 143.

27Power, op. cit., p. 179.

28Samuel G. Williams, The History of Medieval
Education (Syracuse, N.Y.: C. W. Bardeen Publishers,
1903), p. 89.

29Robert Quick, Esseys on Educational Reformers
(New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), p. 92.

30Williams, op. cit., p. 89.

31Boyd, op. cit., p. 255.

3zIbid., p. 207.

 

 

33Williams, op. cit., p. 106.

34Monroe, op. cit., p. 385.

3SRusk, op. cit., p. 135.

36William Boyd, The Egucational Theory of Jean
Jacques Rousseau (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc.,
1963)! p- S. '

37Rusk, op. cit., p. 156.

 

 

8Rousseau, op. cit., p. 122.

39

39Paul Monroe, op. cit., p. 642.

4°Ibid.

 

ll-

CHAPTER III

PERSISTENT ROLES

In this chapter, roles of the teacher that have
persisted from Ancient Times to the Early Modern era
will be examined and analyzed. These comprise the estab-
lishment of a close personal relationship between teacher
and student, and the provision of a good environment for
learning. After the analysis, the writer will advance
reasons for the persistence of these roles.

The Establishment of a Good Personal

Relationship Between Teacher
and Student

 

 

One of the important considerations in fostering
learning is the establishment of a good personal rela-
tionship between teacher and student. This role of the
teacher was promoted by our exemplars of Ancient Times,
Isocrates and Quintilian. Isocrates believed that such a
relationship was requisite for the teacher to exercise
maximum influence on the character and scholarly aspira-
tions of his protégé.l Ideally, this relationship was to

be in the nature of a spiritual bond between the two par-

ties. As Broudy interpreted it,

40

41

Crucial to his [the teacher's] effectiveness
was undoubtedly the close personal relationship
that developed between master and pupil-—a spiri-
tual bond so intimate and powerful that it was
frequently maintained throughout the life of both
persons.

Isocrates was an exemplar of his precept in this
regard, for he resorted frequently to informality in his
approach to teaching by conducting his classes in a
relaxed atmosphere and encouraging frequent meetings with
his students to allow his personal influence to be felt
to the fullest extent. Indeed, when the students of
Isocrates graduated, "so happy did they feel in their
life with [him] that they would always take their leave
with regret and tears."3 Isocrates also boasted of the
parents ”rejoicing to see their sons Spending their days
in [his societyl."4

Quintilian was another of the ancient exemplars
who recognized how important it was for the teacher to
understand, communicate with, and encourage mutual
exchanges between himself and student. As Castle puts it,
”he was the first serious student of the pupils' reaction
to teaching."5 Quintilian's attitude in this regard was
quite different from his contemporaries who saw the
teacher's position at the helm only, giving directives to
students without allowing for feedback from them.

Quintilian saw the teacher as a professional whose

role it was to make efforts to utilize the most effective

42

methods of teaching by using psychology to work upon the
positive impulses of his students' temperament in order
to encourage and motivate them to perform their best.
Hence he exhorted teachers to observe that: "In correct-
ing faults he [the teacher] must avoid sarcasm and above
all abuse; for teachers whose rebukes seem to imply posi-
tive dislike discourage industry."6

The establishment of good rapport between teacher
and student is also in accord with our Sixteenth Century
exemplars, Ascham, Montaine, and the Jesuits. The Jesuits
believed that the teacher should take the initiative in
establishing a close personal bond between himself and
his students, "especially those who are being groomed for
the order."7 As such, the teachers in the Jesuit schools
were expected to take a natural interest in youngsters by
providing leadership, assurance, and psychological sup-
port for them. This they did, for the Jesuits were "men
with a burning enthusiasm for and devotion to their work
and their religion"8 and always exhibited a "natural
interest in youngsters."9

The teacher's attitude towards_his students was
to be characterized "with a mixture of paternalism and
solicitude."lo The student, on the other hand, was to be
obedient and respectful, to ”conduct himself decorously
and to study what was given him in the way he was told to

11

study it." The ideal teacher, according to the Jesuits,

43

was one who was understanding, appreciative, and sympa-
thetic with those committed to him. It was his role to
try to discover the potentials or possibilities that were
in each of his students and develop them for the service
of God and mankind.

In their efforts to establish good human relation-
ships, the Jesuits did not neglect their responsibility
for the physical well-being of their students, for they
realized that poor health may have an adverse effect on
one's attitudes. Hence care was taken to ensure that
students did not suffer illness by being overtaxed men?
tally. To avoid this, the master was required "to study
the character and capacity of each boy in his class, and
to keep a book with all particulars about him."12 "This
facilitated the assigning of the appropriate amount of
work that was suited to the capacity and intelligence of
each pupil. It was by knowing the needs and aSpirations
of his students and by keeping personal contact with them
that the Jesuit teacher was able to fulfill one of the
roles required of him, that of establishing good human
relationships with his students.

Other Sixteenth Century teachers who recognized
the importance of the role of the teacher in maintaining
healthy relationships with his students were Roger Ascham,
an Engligh schoolmaster of the humanist persuasion, and

Michel Montaigne, a French educational theorist who has

44

sometimes been described as a humanist, a realist, and a
naturalist.

Like other humanists, Ascham believed that for
the child's educational progress, it was necessary for the
teacher to establish a cordial relationship with his pupil.
He argued that this served to eliminate fear which was a
deterrent to learning since it stifled initiative and
creativity on the part of students. The other ill-
effects of fear were that it led students to turn to other
sources for help in their school work instead of approach-
ing the teacher, who was more qualified to give assistance.

As Ascham put it in his well-known work, The Schoolmaster:

 

Let your scholar be never afraid to ask you any
, doubt, but use discreetly the best allurements ye
can to encourage him to the same; lest his overmuch
fearing of you drive him to be helped by some other
book, or to be prompted by some scholar, and so go
about to beguile you much and himself more.

Instead of instilling fear in his pupils in order
to gain their respect, Ascham recommended instead that
the teacher use praise and commendation to encourage
learning. According to him, "I assure you that there is
no such whetstone to sharpen a good wit and encourage a
will to learning as praise."l4

Again in The Schoolmaster, Ascham pleaded,

But if the child miss, either in forgetting a

word or in changing a good with.a worse, or mis-
ordering the sentence I would not have the master

either frown or chide with him, if the child have
done his diligence, and used no truantship therein,

.,

ii

mu.

45

for I know by good experience that a child shall

take more profit of two faults gently warned of

than of four things rightly hit.15

Montaigne believed that the teacher's attitude
towards his pupils should be characterized by cordiality,
friendship, and moderation rather than severity, violence,
and force. He denounced vigorously the severity that was
customary in the schools of his time and the harshness
evident in the relationships between teachers and stu-
dents, arguing instead that the teacher should accommo-
date himself to the ability of the pupils, an attitude
which he regarded as "a mark of a lofty and very strong
spirit to know how to condescend to those childish steps
and to guide them."16
i All three Early Modern exemplars agree that the
teacher should take the initiative in establishing a
close rapport with his students. In Rousseau's educa-
tional scheme proposed in the Emlle, the relationship was
to be in the nature of "father-child" since the tutor
was expected to be a surrogate father for his hypotheti-
cal pupil Emile. This close personal bond was requisite
if Emile's education was to be at its best. It was to be
effected through a kind of contract. As Broome described
it:
Its terms are simple. From the parents, it
calls for the transfer of all authority to the

tutor; from the tutor, it requires complete dedi-
cation to his charge, the recompense for which

46

will be the ultimate gratitude of the pupil and
the moral satisfaction accruing from a task well
done.17
Pestalozzi was an advocate of a close personal
relationship between teacher and student on the grounds

that it was necessary for true learning to take place.

Hence in his treatise on education, How Gertrude Teaches

 

Her Children, Gertrude, the mother and prototype of the

 

ideal educator, taught her children in an atmosphere rich
in affection, care, and concern. This was the type of
relationship that Pestalozzi maintained should be estab-
1ished between teacher and student in the regular class-
room. Hence he was strongly in favour of the school
being a replica of the best home.

A close relationship between teacher and student
is pivotal to Froebel's principles of education. This is
again in keeping with the role he prescribed for the
teacher--that of gardener. The analogy of the child as a
young plant is thus appropriate here. Just as the young
plant needs the care and watchful eye of the gardener, so
too the pupil needs the care and watchfulness of the
teacher. This can only be effected when there is a close
relationship between teacher and student.

Providing the Correct Environment
for Learning

 

Providing the correct environment for learning

was another role that persisted over the three periods

47

covered in this dissertation. Isocrates, one of the
exemplars of Ancient Times, promoted it. This was in
keeping with his emphasis on the pre-eminence of the power
of nurture over nature. Thus he wrote, "the majority of
men tend to assimilate the manners and morals amid which
they have been reared."18
The importance of providing or creating the
appropriate environment conducive to learning has been
recognized by educators throughout the ages; hence the
practice did not originate with Isocrates. It was advo-
cated also by Plato in Ancient Greece. After so many
years of controversy, the nature-nurture problem remains
an unsettled issue. The behaviourists, on the one hand,
emphasize the influence of the environment on behaviour
as opposed to the effects of heredity. This is evidenced
by the often-quoted statement attributed to the famous
philosopher of that persuasion, John Watson, who claimed
that, given a normal healthy baby at birth and given con-
trol over his environment, he could train the individual
to become any one of the following: "doctor, lawyer,
artist, merchant-chief and yes even a beggarman and thief,
regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abili-
ties, vocations and race of his ancestors."19

Plato's emphasis on the importance of having the

proper environment for learning was perhaps more

48

pronounced than other educators of the Greco-Roman world.
As Castle notes,

Nowhere in the history of education do we find
a more persuasive and vivid demonstration of the
influence of environment, whether of evil or of
the inflowing power of beauty and goodness over
the growing mind as in the Laws where he deals
with the schooling of ordinary children--education
becomes a nurture in so strictly guarded an envi-
ronment that we begin to discern the shades of the
prison house.

 

In Plato's educational theories, attention was to
be given by the parent and teacher, early in the life of
the child, because these were the formative, impression-
able years. Hence Plato cautioned, ”the beginning you
know is always the most important part, especially when
you are dealing with everything young and tender."21

The Sixteenth Century exemplars, notably Mulcaster
and the Jesuits, were also proponents for providing the
correct environment for learning. The reason for this,
as Mulcaster puts it, is that:

In the little young souls we find a capacity

to perceive what is taught to them and to imitate
those around them. That faculty of learning and
following should be well employed by choosing the
prOper matter to be set before them.22
The phrase "the proper matter to be set before them"
could be interpreted to mean arranging the correct envi-
ronment that will foster the learning of desirable mate-

rial to the maximal level. The proper environment is

also important, because of the tendency, as Mulcaster

49

noted, "of little young souls to imitate those around
them."23

The Jesuits believed that the school environment
should possess the atmosPhere congruent with the atti-
tudes and desirable character traits that they tried to
nurture in the students as religious leaders. Hence they
regarded it as their responsibility as teachers to pro-
vide such an environment.

The Early Modern exemplars, Rousseau, Pestalozzi,
and Froebel, believed in the influence of the environment
for good or evil; hence they exhorted teachers to give
the matter great consideration. Rousseau believed that
the best environment for learning could be found in the
countryside, in natural surroundings away from objection—
able attractions and societal influences. It was impor-
tant for the tutor to take his pupil, Emile, to such an
environment for his education.

Pestalozzi and Froebel believed that it was the
responsibility of the teacher to create a classroom envi-
ronment rich in love and acceptance where the seeds of
moral character could be sown, and where the child could
unfold the potentialities with which he was endowed by

nature.

SO

Suggested Reasons for the Persistence
of These Roles

 

Several reasons may be advanced for the persis-
tence of the establishment of a good personal relationship
between the teacher and student. It would seem, though,
that all educators did not have the same reasons for advo-
cating this role. In Ancient Times, Isocrates and Quin-
tilian probably believed that such a close association
was of benefit, both to the learner and the teacher. The
learner benefited, because he would likely interpret the
teacher's initiative in establishing a close personal bond
to mean that he had an interest in his academic and social
welfare. The teacher in turn benefited from the close
association because this afforded him opportunities to get
to know his student better in such areas as his academic
strengths and weaknesses, his character traits, and his
scholarly aspirations. Such knowledge would be helpful to
the teacher. Moreover, Isocrates and Quintilian seemed
to be aware of the fact that they could help to motivate
their students by showing a personal interest in them.

The reasons why the Jesuits promoted this role
seem to center around the following:

They undoubtedly believed that by getting to know
their students closely, they would have greater influence
over them academically, morally, and socially. It is also

conceivable that the Jesuits thought that by showing great

51

interest in their students, the assurances, encourage-
ment, and support they needed to remain staunch adherents
to their religion would be provided. One has to remember
that the Jesuits Were a teaching order that devoted much
of its time and efforts to the spreading of Catholic doc-
trine at a period when Protestantism was on the rise in
Europe.

Being a priestly order, the Jesuits were particu-
larly interested in the religious welfare of their stu-
dents. Hence they assumed the role of good shepherds
whose duty it was to take care of their sheep. In order
to be good shepherds, they had to know their sheep well
and be able to communicate with and understand them. It
seems logical to think that this was one of their reasons
for taking the initiative in establishing friendly rela-
tionships with their students.

Another reason was that the Jesuits were concerned
about making new recruits from promising students who
would continue the work of these dedicated clerics in the
service of God and man.

Finally, the Jesuits believed that their students
would benefit academically from a close association with
their teachers because there is a tendency for people to
like those with whom they associate; and as Sacchini, a
leading Jesuit, noted, "when pupils love their master,

they soon get to love his teaching."24

52

Rousseau was a proponent of this role because the
success of the teaching venture depended on the close
relationship between the tutor and Emile. This associa-
tion was to be based on love for childhood. Hence in a
moving passage taken from the Emile he eloquently exhorted
teachers and parents to:

Love childhood. Encourage its sports, its

pleasures and its instinct for happiness. Who of
you has not sometimes regretted the period when a
laugh was always on the lips and the soul always

in peace? Why will you deny those little innocents
the enjoyment of that brief period which so soon
escapes them, and of that precious good which they
cannot abuse? Why will you fill with bitterness
and sorrow those first years so quickly passing
which will no more return to them than they can
return to you?

Moreover, the role of facilitator of learning
that Rousseau conceived for the teacher was dependent upon
the establishment of a close personal relationship between
teacher and pupil, for it was characterized by acceptance,
trust, caring, and commitment. Rousseau believed that the
ideal conditions for learning were present in such a rela-
tionship; hence it was incumbent upon the teacher to fos-
ter it.

The reasons that Pestalozzi advanced for his advo-
cacy of this role were that a close personal relationship
between teacher and pupil created an atmosphere in the
school that demonstrated genuine affection and interest

in the welfare of its students. In addition to this,

"the teacher who keeps his pupils interested in their

53

progress and aware of his genuine interest in them will
have few, if any, so-called discipline problems."26
Froebel believed that it was only through the
establishment of a close personal relationship that the
teacher was able to show the "love and care" that were
needed for his pupils to attain their highest potentials.
Reaepns for the gersistence_e£
the Role of the Teacher in Pro-

viding the Correct Environment
for Learning

 

This role persisted from Ancient Times to the
Early Modern era because of the advantages each educator
saw in advocating it. Isocrates, one of our ancient
exemplars, thought it important because he believed in
the power of "nurture over nature." He maintained with
great certainty that individuals were the products of
their culture, for there was a tendency for peOple to
absorb the manners, attitudes, mores, and customs of
those around them. The implication of this for education
was that it placed the responsibility on the teacher to
provide the correct environment for the education of the
child.

Plato recognized the importance of providing the
correct environment for learning, even from early child-
hood, because he believed at this time the child received
impressions which made indelible marks on his mind for

life. He urged parents to be very cautious about those

54

whom they chose to bring up their child. Teachers, gover-
nesses, and nurses were to be respectable and of impec-
cable character because they represented models which the
child would imitate. Plato argued that the surroundings
played as great a part in molding the minds of human
beings as the subjects they studied. The importance Plato
attached to the influence of environment on learning is
glaringly revealed from a passage taken from the Republic:
The young should live in a wholesome climate
and drink in good from every quarter, so that like
a wind bringing health from healthy lands, some
influence from noble works may from childhood
upwards constantly fall on ear and insensibly draw
them into sympathy and harmony with the beauty of
reason.2
The Jesuits believed that a good environment was
important for learning and the inculcation of virtues.
Hence this was provided for the students in Jesuit schools
by the teachers who were themselves ordained priests, men
who pledged to maintain high moral standards at all times
and to display uprightness in their dealings with their
fellowmen. In other words, the tone and atmosphere of
Jesuit schools provided the correct environment for
learning.
Our Early Modern exemplars were in complete agree-
ment with the benefits to be derived from a good learning

environment; hence this role of the teacher was maintained

in Early Modern Times, though for different reasons.

55

Rousseau believed that a wholesome environment
was important in educating the young. Hence in his Emlle
he recommended that the pupil be taken from the city to
the salubrious country atmosphere, away from the contami-
nating influences of society which Rousseau held were
responsible for making the child depraved. As indicated
in the second chapter of this dissertation, Rousseau
believed that the child was born good but that society
was responsible for its subsequent depravity.

In Pestalozzi's educational scheme, the provision
of a good environment for learning was one of the respon-
sibilities of the teacher, hence Pestalozzi's analogy of
the teacher as a gardener whose duty it was to create the
correct environment and his insistence that the school
should be in the nature of a good home where love,
co-operation, and genuine interest prevailed.

Froebel likewise compared the role of the teacher
to that of a gardener in the figurative sense for, follow-
ing his methodology, the teacher was expected to provide
the correct environment for the child to unfold,just as
the gardener was supposed to provide the right environ-

ment for the healthy and successful growth of his plants.

56

Footnotes--Chapter III

1Harry S. Broudy, Exemplars of Teaching Method
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965), p. 22.

21bid.

3Frederick A. G. Beck, Greek Education 450-350
(New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1964), p. 268.

4Ibid.

5E. B. Castle, The Teacher (Oxford University
Press, 1970), P. 41.

6Quintilian, Inepitutes of Oratory, Book II, in
Three Tppusand Years of’Educational Wisdom, ed. Robert
Ulich (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950),

p. 120.

7Luella Cole, A History of Education (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 319.

81bid., p. 319.

91bid., p. 314.

loIbid., p. 321.

llIbid.

lzIbid., p. 319.

13Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster, ed. Lawrence
Ryan (New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 16.

14Ibid., p. 15.

l51bid., p. 23.

16Samuel G. Williams, The Histopy of Modern Educa-
tion (Syracuse, N.Y.: C. W. Bardeen, Publisher, 1903),

p. 88.

17J. H. Broome, Rousseau: A Study of His Thoughts
(London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1963), P. 81.

18Beck, 0p. cit., p. 269.

57

19John S. Brubacher, A History of the Problems of

Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1947),
p. 156.

 

 

20Castle, op. cit., p. 72.

21Plato, The Republic, trans. Francis Cornford
(Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 68.

22

 

Cole, op. cit., p. 268.

231bid.

24Robert Quick, Essaye on Educational Reformers
(New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), p. 53.

25Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara
Foxley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Everyman's Library,
1976), p. 43.

 

6Romana Walch, Pestalozzi and the Pestalozzian
Theory of Education (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Uni-
versity of America Press, 1952), p. 164.

27Richard Livingstone, Plato and Modern Education
(New York: Macmillan, 1944), p. 10.

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF THE ROLES OF TEACHERS

In this chapter, conceptions of teaching roles
which have changed from Ancient to Early Modern Times
will be listed and analysed. The writer will suggest
reasons why these changes have taken place. The roles
are discussed under the following categories: methods of
instruction, discipline, the teacher as model, and moral

training.

Methggs of Instruction in Ancient Times

In Ancient Greece and Rome, teachers and philoso-
phers constituted the intelligentsia or enlightened class
of the population, notwithstanding the fact that some
teachers were slaves.l Knowledge was not as widespread
among the populace as it is today. This was presumably
because in the predominantly agrarian economy of Ancient
Greece and Rome book learning was not given the same pri-
ority as knowledge of agriculture, military logistics, and
skill in the weapons of warfare or the trades.

According to Good, teaching methods in Athens were
"mechanical and the motive was often supplied by the rod."2

Children were required to memorize long passages from Homer

58

59

and other poets which had to be regurgitated at forthcom-
ing examinations. Teaching in general was in the nature
of dispensing information. The role of the teacher was
not conceived of as a guide, nor a facilitator of learning,
nor a dialectical gardener, as the Early Modern educators
advocated.
Role of the Teacher as Molder
ofCCharacter and Indoctrinator

The image of the teacher as a molder of character
and indoctrinator was common among the Ancient Greeks and
Romans. At that time, children were considered as malle-
able clay in the hands of the potter--the teacher. Their
youthful minds and character were to be shaped into the
pattern acceptable to the community or state.3 Plato
believed in the power of molding and indoctrination, point-
ing out that teachers (and parents) were in positions of
vantage for this role by virtue of the respect they
received from the young and the fact that they spent a
great deal of time with them. So deeply did Plato believe
in this form of teaching that in his famous Republic, the
teacher is required to mold children into a shape conform-
able to the laws of the state or the community's views of
the good citizen under pain of dismissal.4

This molding and indoctrination were to be facili-
tated by censorship. Any material in the curriculum that

did not meet the teacher's approval was to be expunged for

60

fear of its corrupting effect on the youth. Censorship
was to be started early in the life of the child to facili-
tate and harmonize with the work of teachers later.
Mothers and nurses were to tell their children only author-
ized tales, because these, Plato maintained, had great
influence on character formation and the attitudes of
small children.5

The young, he contended, were particularly suscep-
tible to example which made them imitate the behaviour of
those whom they admired, even if their heroes were only
fictional. In Plato's own words,

You must have noticed how the reproduction of

another person's gestures or tones of voice or

states of mind, if persisted in from youth up,
grows into a habit which becomes second nature.

6
Fundamental to Plato's philosophy of education and
his ethics was the principle that only those things which
led to virtue should be admitted in education. Thus a
high value should be placed on truth. Likewise, temper-
ance, implying self-control in sensual pleasures, and
obedience to those in authority were to be commended. On
the other hand, covetousness was to be condemned.7 In
keeping with this principle, he maintained that children
should not be indoctrinated to believe that wicked men
were often happy and that the good were miserable; neither

should they be told that injustice was profitable when

undetected.8 Teachers, like mothers and nurses, were

61

cautioned to refrain from telling children stories about
gods who demonstrated ill-will against their parents or
fighting and quarrelling amongst themselves or even of gods
transforming themselves, since the divine state, being
already perfect, should not need change.9

Indoctrination and censorship were also prevalent
in Plato's leme. The poets who wrote material to be used
in schools were restricted in the compilation of their
anthologies, to themes and ideas that were conducive to
virtue. Pupils were not to have any contact with such
actions or emotions which Plato judged to be unworthy, as
occurred so frequently in the works of Homer and Hesiod.lo
Dramatic poetry in particular was the target of attack,
since Plato thought that the reciter or listener tended
to absorb himself in the words or emotions expressed,
which left an indelible impression on his character. The
simple narrative recounting noble actions was to replace
dramatic poetry. It is important to point out that Plato
did not criticize the merits of these works as poetry but
as educational material to be absorbed by children.

The music that the young should hear was to be
sanctioned as well. Teachers were to be on the alert to
reject all melodies that were effeminate and convivial
and retain only those that would make the students coura-

geous and temperate, for as Plato argued:

62

Rhythm and harmony sink deep into the recesses

of the soul and take the strongest hold there, bring-
‘ing that grace of body and mind which is only to be
found in one who is brought up in the right way.
Moreover, a proper training in this kind makes a man
quick to perceive any defects or ugliness in art or
in nature. Such deformity will rightly disgust him.
Approving all that is lovely, he will welcome it

home with joy into his soul and, nourished thereby,
grow into a man of noble spirit. All that is ugly
and disgraceful he will rightly condemn and abhor
while he is still too young to understand and reason:
and when reason comes, he will greet her as a frienp
with whom his education has made him long familiar. 1

Works of art were likewise to be examined and if
found unacceptable were to be censored in order to protect

the young student from their corrupting influences.

Maieutic Role of the Teacher
Socrates compared the role of the teacher to that

of a midwife.12

This maieutic conception of the teacher's
role was based on his belief in the pre-existence of the
soul before birth, at which time it was imbued with knowl-
edge, which became partially forgotten when it entered
the body.13 In other words, he believed that knowledge
was innate as it already resided in the individual;
therefore it was unnecessary for the teacher to provide
new experiences for the child. The teacher's role was to
stimulate the intellect so that the student may recover
or recognize the knowledge he already possessed, though
partially forgotten.14
Following his methodology, based on this theory,

the approach recommended is that the teacher ask the

63

student a series of carefully graded sequential questions
designed not only to educe knowledge, but to clear the
pupil of foggy thinking and moreover to make him question
many ideas and concepts he previously took for granted.

The responsibility for educating the child in the
Socratic approach therefore rested with the teacher, for
knowledge was supposed to be inherent, but skill on the
part of the teacher was needed to draw it forth.

In the Meme, one of Plato's famous dialogues,
Socrates illustrated how he was able to implement his
methodology when he succeeded in getting a slave boy who
had never had the benefit of an education to comprehend
complex mathematical concepts and solve eventually the
theorem of Pythagoras.l

Socrates began his teaching by questioning his
respondent about a subject or concept the latter took for
granted he knew, or one that seemed beyond question such
as the nature of courage, temperance, or justice. This
led the respondent to display his ignorance on the ques-
tion whose answer appeared previously to be obvious. The
revelation of ignorance precisely where one thought him—
self knowledgeable always induced embarrassment which led
to anger against Socrates but occasionally with oneself.
At this point, the time was appropriate for the positive
side of Socratic teaching--namely, dialectical self-

. I 16
exam1nation.

64

What is fundamental to this maieutic concept is
the notion that the teacher cannot really teach anything,
but can only help the student in his life-long task to
recollect former knowledge. The role of the teacher,
therefore, is to bring into sharper focus the forms of
goodness and beauty which are the ultimate truth.

Though Plato was in agreement with Socrates in
many respects, he seemed to have parted company with his
teacher on this conception of the teacher's role as mid-
wife, because of Plato's belief in molding and indoctrin-
ating which suggested putting material into the student's
mind, rather than educing it.

Methods of Instruction in
the Sixteenth Century

Despite the efforts of Ascham, Mulcaster, and
Montaigne to improve methods of instruction, teaching in
the Sixteenth Century remained for the most part a matter
of dispensing information, molding, and indoctrination.

Role of the Teacher as Molder
of’Character and Indoctrinator

 

 

In order to promote the doctrine and dogma of the
Catholic Church, the Jesuits seemed to rely a great deal
on molding and indoctrination, reminiscent of the method-
ology adopted by Plato as was seen earlier. What were

the conditions that facilitated molding in Jesuit schools?

65

As Monroe put it, "the teacher and taught were in such

close personal contact, that it gave to their schools a

17

molding power beyond most others.” This supports

' Mulhern's observation about Jesuit educators.

As educators, the Jesuits did not aim to develop
in their students free minds, critical of authority.
It was rather their aim to make them intellectual
adherents and defenders of official Catholic ortho-
doxy.18

It was against molding, indoctrination, and
unquestioning obedience to authority that the Early Modern
educators, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel, directed
their attention. This was particularly true of Rousseau,
as will be seen later in this study.

The practice of indoctrinating with little or no
regard for understanding seemed to be based on the assump-
tion that the child would have doctrine so indelibly
imprinted on his mind in childhood, when he was impres-
sionable, that he would not forget the material learnt
and hopefully would put it into practice when he was
older. At any rate, this was one of the ways Jesuit
teachers used to promote the teachings of the Church.

Role of the Teacher as
Dispenser of Information

 

 

Dispensing of information was the methodology
practised in many schools of the Sixteenth Century. The
impact of our Sixteenth Century exemplar, Mulcaster, who

had "an intuitive understanding of at least some phases of

66

child psychology"19 and such principles as readiness, and
the fundamentals of education according to nature, was not
sufficient to change the status quo. Dispensing of infor-
mation led to memorization on the part of the students,
and this was generally done with little understanding of
the material absorbed. This was prevalent in the Six-
teenth Century, despite the efforts of Montaigne and his
caution,
To know by heart only is not to know at all;
it is simply to keep what one has committed to
his memory. What a man knows directly, that will

he dispose of without turning to his book or look-
ing to his pattern.

Methods of Instruction in Early Modern Times

 

Role of the Teacher as
Facilitator of Learning

 

 

One of the important roles Rousseau conceived for
the teacher was that of facilitator of learning. Although
this approach to teaching was not as well developed by
Rousseau as it is today by Carl Rogers, a well-known
therapist and educational theorist, it will be useful to
compare this concept of Rousseau's from the Rogerian stand-
point. To begin with, facilitation, according to Rogers,
is effected when the teacher takes the initiative and

provides the conditions which lead to meaningful or
significant self-directed learning. The objective
is to develop a group, including the teacher, into
a community of learners. In such a community, the
curriculum is freed, the sense of inquiry is opened

up, everything is open to questioning and explora-
tion.

67

Certain behaviours and attitudes are requisite on
the teacher's part for him to fulfill his role as facili-
tator. According to Rogers, his relationship to his stu-
dent should be characterized by empathy, caring, trusting,
prizing, and respecting the student as a person of worth.22

Based on the fundamental ideas of facilitation
stated above, the teacher, using the Rousseauan approach,
fulfilled the role as facilitator in a number of ways.

Following Rousseau, the curriculum was made for
the child and not the child for the curriculum. In fact,
the child was freed from the curriculum when he showed no
desire for it. The role of the teacher was to surround
his pupil with all the lessons he would like him to learn,
but the choice was to be left to the pupil to react.23
Freedom was given to the latter to explore the environ-
ment and to ask questions.

As facilitator, the teacher's aim was to make the
child wish to learn and this, Rousseau contended, could
never be achieved with threats and punishment, since
learning is synonymous with pleasant experiences. In
other words, as Rousseau always insisted, learning could
not be promoted when lessons were detested.24

As facilitator, the teacher was expected to adapt
school work to the cognitive level of development of the

child. Certain subjects like history, literature, and

geography were to be introduced at times when they were

68

more likely to arouse the interest of the student. More-
over, teachers were to bear in mind that "childhood is

the sleep of reason,"25

for Rousseau maintained that try-
ing to convince a child that he committed an error was a
futile activity.

In this setting, the teacher became a guide or
resource person. However, the word "guide” is used in a
different sense here by Rousseau since he did not mean
that the teacher, because of his exemplary qualities,
should necessarily serve as a model for his pupil. What
he meant was that the teacher without being authoritative
should assist the child, by suggesting, planning, and pre-
paring the environment along with him. Help was to be
given when the situation warranted it, and discretion on
the part of the teacher was to be shown in this regard.
The teacher was to allow the child to learn through his
own experiences, and books were not to be a substitute
for these. This distaste for books in lieu of experien-
tial learning was consistent with the teachings of
Rousseau. "Give your scholar no verbal lessons," he
claimed, "he should be taught by experience alone. . . .
I am never weary of repeating . . . learn from experi-
ence."26 Moreover, Rousseau rejected explanations from
the teacher because he believed that young people paid

little heed to the teacher's words and they did not remem—

ber them anyway. "Things, Things," he insisted, "I cannot

69

repeat it too often. We lay too much stress upon words;
we teachers babble and our scholars follow our example."27
Rousseau preferred to use the word "master”
instead of "teacher" to designate the person responsible
for educating the pupil during childhood. A quotation
from his Emlle will substantiate this point.
Besides, I prefer to call the man who has this
knowledge "master” rather than teacher, since it
it a question of guidance rather than instruction.

He must not give precepts, he must let the scholar
find them out for himself.28

Role of the Teacher: Gardener

 

Because Froebel believed in the principle of
unfolding, he compared the role of the teacher to that of
a gardener, and the child to a human plant, whose intrin-
sic nature could not change. In fact, the name of the
school he founded--the kindergarten or children's garden--
was in keeping with this concept. The purpose of the
educator was to facilitate the growth of the child into
a man, just as the task of the gardener was to nurture the
plant to its full flowering and fruition. This nurturing
should be interpreted to mean providing the necessary
nutrients, fertilizers, and moisture for the plant while
at the same time allowing it to unfold according to its
nature. The task of the teacher likewise, according to
Froebel, was to see that the development of the child was

unhampered and that he was provided with the resources

70

needed for his wholesome development. While taking the
necessary external care of the child, the teacher should

be as unobtrusive as possible. Two passages from Froebel's
The Education of Man help to buttress this viewpoint:

Education is in fact but the process of secur-
ing such an unfolding of what was from the first
divinely enfolded. Moreover, the germ contains
and is an exact proper plan of what the adult form
should be. Under such conditions, that education
is best which fosters most completely the full and
unhampered unfolding of the original germ.

Therefore education in instruction and train-
ing, originally and in its first principles, should
necessarily be passive, following; only guarding and
protective, not prescriptive, categorical, interfer-
1ng.

In order to support his position more convincingly,
Froebel drew references from the world of nature as analo-
gies between the role of the teacher and the gardener or
naturalist. Thus he argued:
We grant space and time to young plants and
animals because we know that, in accordance with
the laws that live in them, they will develOp and
grow well; and arbitrary interference with them
is avoided, because it is known that the oppo-
site practice would disturb their pure unfolding
and sound development, but the young human being
is looked upon as a piece of wax or a lump of
clay, which man can mold into what he pleases.31
This is an eloquent exhortation to teachers and
parents to stop their intrusion or intervention in the
natural course of develOpment of the child. That educa-
tors should follow the methods of the gardener in the

world of nature was Froebel's plea:

71

In the treatment of things of nature, we may
often take the right road, whereas in the treat-
ment of man we go astray; and yet the forces that
act in both proceed from the same source and obey
the same law.

Pestalozzi's conception of the role of the teacher
was similar to that of Froebel's, for he compared the
teacher's job to that of a gardener also and the child to
a growing plant.33 The teacher's task following this
view is to supply the necessary conditions that will
facilitate, rather than hinder, the unfolding powers of
his students. As Pestalozzi puts it:

He merely watches lest any external force might
hinder or disturb the order of Nature in the devel-
Opment of the individual powers of his students; he
sees to it that the development of the individual
power finds an unimpeded course according to its
own laws.

Thus, in order that the teacher may succeed in
his task, Pestalozzi maintained, it was necessary for him
to work with and not against the grain, that is, in har-
mony with the laws of nature of which human nature is but
a part. This necessitates acquaintance with these laws
of growth and training as these will have relevance for
his methodology. Failure to recognize and work with these
laws inevitably leads to distortion of the natural devel-
Opment of the child, just as failure on the gardener's

part to recognize natural laws leads to distortion of the

growth and physical development of the plant.

72
Suggested Reasons for Ehe Changes in
Role Conceptions in Instructions

The concept of the role of the teacher with regard
to methods of imparting information has changed greatly
from Ancient to Early Modern Times, as was seen at the
beginning of this chapter. In Ancient Times the teacher
was either a dispenser of information, an indoctrinator,
molder, or midwife in the Socratic sense of the term.
There was not much improvement in methodologies in the
Sixteenth Century for indoctrination, molding, and dis-
pensing of information were still practised widely. The
most distinctive and far-reaching changes in the concep-
tion of the teacher's instructive role came with the
advent of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. These
changes were attributable to the following factors:

The philosophy of Naturalism, espoused by Rousseau,
the fundamental tenets of which were the existence of
natural developmental stages in the child, levels of
readiness, the necessity of education in harmony with
natural human development, and learning by way of activ-
ity and experience.

These features of Naturalism, especially the
existence of developmental stages in the child and levels
of readiness, shaped Rousseau's conception of the teacher
as a facilitator of learning and a guide rather than a

dispenser of information and an indoctrinator. As

73

facilitator, the teacher was expected to adapt the mate-
rial taught to the child's level of development. More-
over, discretion was expected from the teacher in his use
or rejection of the curriculum as he saw fit. Teaching
assumed the nature of guiding rather than enforcing
because the child's ability to progress depended upon the
cognitive level he attained, which affected in turn his
readiness to learn. Hence any attempt on the part of the
teacher to coerce the pupil when he was not mentally or
physically prepared to do the task presented to him
resulted in failure, which promoted a dislike for learn-
ing altogether.

Dispensing of information was considered anathema
to Rousseau because this approach presupposed the child
to be a passive receptacle in which information was to be
stored. On the contrary, Rousseau thought learning was
an active process which was in keeping with his adherence
to Naturalism. In other words, he did not equate learning
with the absorption of facts nor indoctrination. Learning
could only be achieved by doing as the expression "learn-
ing by doing" states..

Froebel was dissatisfied with the role of the
teacher as dispenser of information, indoctrinator, or
molder. He vigorously expressed disapproval with molding
because he thought that this approach presupposed the

child to be'kalump or clay or wax in the hands of the

74

potter."35

As indicated earlier, he preferred to think of
the teacher as a gardener, preparing the environment for
the child that would conduce to maximal learning. This
was in keeping with his methodology of allowing the child
to unfold what nature has enfolded.

Pestalozzi's approach to teaching also helped to
initiate change in teaching roles from what they were in
Ancient Times to new conceptions in Early Modern Times.
Pestalozzi's conception of the teacher as a gardener was
in accord with that of Froebel's, as was indicated earlier
in this chapter. The need for change was also spearheaded
by the Progressive Movement, which could be traced back to
Rousseau36 and his epoch-making book Emlle. However,
Rousseau was essentially an educational theorist, since he
did little or no teaching. It was left to Pestalozzi, who
had much experience in the classroom, to put into effect
his ideas-~and this he did creditably.

Disciplinary Role 9; the Teacher
in Ancient Times

 

 

In Ancient Times, discipline in schools was very
severe. The administering of corporal punishment for
relatively slight misdemeanours was common. Isocrates and
Quintilian, two of our exemplars of Ancient Times, had
lenient views on the subject of punishment and this should
be recognized, However, Plato's views on the role of the

teacher in disciplining the child were different from the

75

two exemplars just mentioned, but were typical of edu-
cators of his day. Although he was in favour of some
forms of play in his methodology: there is, however, the
advocacy of strict discipline in Plato's educational
scheme. The teacher was to be an authoritarian, "break-
ing the will" of boys, and subjecting them to do only
what they were told. This approach was attributable to
Plato's image of the child whom he regarded as crafty,
wayward, mischievous, and difficult to manage; one who
would conform to law and order not willingly but only when
subjected to severe disciplinary procedure. This concept
of the child and the strict disciplinary procedures that
the teacher was advised to follow to counteract his
undesirable tendencies is evidenced and supported from a
passage in Plato's Laws:

When the day breaks, the time has arrived for
youth to go to their schoolmasters. Now, neither
sheep nor any other animals can live without a
shepherd, nor can children be left without tutors,
or slaves without masters. And of all animals,
the boy is the most unmanageable, inasmuch as he
has the fountain of reason in him not yet regu-
lated; he is the most insidious, sharp-witted,
and insubordinate of animals7 Wherefore he must
be bound with many bridles.

‘Again, :hn the Laws, Plato commissions the adult
citizens of his hypothetical community under threat of
condemnation for default to inflict punishment on any boy
they observe committing a misdeed and to disgrace his

teacher for abandoning his role in disciplining him.38

76

Another of Plato's delineations of the character
of the child, with recommendations to the teacher to
reform him, is quoted from the leme to drive home the
point.

The child is by nature unruly and unmanage-

able, requiring frequent admonitions and heavy
blows to keep him under control. Even at play
:edizfpezezlgree from the supervision of adults

The whole educational scheme in the Republic
depends upon and is maintained by discipline. The guar-
dians are to be rigidly screened through several succes-
sive stages during which their ability is tested so as to
make self-control automatic and habitual. The fortunate
ones who survive the severity of the tests of austerity
until its final stages will, at that time, be so condi-
tioned that no further disciplinary training will be
necessary for them other than that provided by their
insights into the Good.40

After reading the above excerpts from Plato's
most famous and well-known treatise on education, one is
surprised at his image of the child as "unwholesome" and
his ready approval of corporal punishment in the form of
"heavy blows" as he described it, to reform him.

In contrast to Plato, Quintilian did not believe

that the teacher needed to use corporal punishment to

reform his students. At a time when this was the accepted

77

practice in almost every Greek and Roman school in the
Ancient WOrld, Quintilian spoke in favour of its aban-
donment. Putting his case in strong terms, and outlining
quite eloquently the psychological reasons for his con-
viction, Quintilian argued,
I disapprove of flogging, although it is the
regular custom and meets with the approval of
Chrysippus, because in the first place, it is a
disgraceful form of punishment and fit only for
slaves, and in any case an insult as you will
realize if you imagine it inflicted at a later
age. Secondly, if a boy is so insensible to
instruction that reproof is useless, he will,
like the worst type of slave, merely become hard-
ened to blows.41
Quintilian was of the opinion that the teacher
would not have to resort to corporal punishment if he had
been maintaining consistently the rules and regulations
of his class. Corporal punishment was also antithetical
to the pedagogical principles of the Sixteenth Century
exemplars.
Disciplinary Role of the Teacher in
tme Sixteenth Century

Consistent with his plea for the establishment of
friendly relationships between teacher and pupil, Ascham
despised the use of the rod in reforming the child on both
moral and pedagogical grounds, claiming that personal
frustrations were generally at the root of the teacher's

inclination to administer corporal punishment and that

many schoolmasters punished students physically for their

78

own sadistic pleasure when they themselves were more

worthy of punishment.42 His disapproval of such teachers

and the punishment they meted out is expressed in one of
his quotations:

I have now wished twice or thrice this gentle
nature to be in a schoolmaster and that I have
done so, neither by chance nor without some rea-
son. I will now declare at large why in mine
opinion love is better than fear, gentleness bet-
ter than beating. . . . For when the schoolmaster
is angry with some other matter, then will he
soonest fall to beat the scholar; and though he
himself should be punished for his folly, yet he
must beat some scholar for his pleasure, though
there be no cause for him to d3 so, nor yet fault
in the scholar to deserve $0.4

Ascham did not believe that the role of the
teacher should be akin to that of the slavedriver, but
that he should exercise moderation when giving schoolwork
to his pupils. In keeping with his humanistic principles,
he maintained that students should have diversion from
their intellectual labours so that they could recuperate
and regain their mental strength. He expressed this view
in the following passage:

And I do not mean by all this my talk that young
gentlemen should always be poring on a book and by
using good studies should leese [loose] honest plea-
sure, and haunt no good pastime. I mean nothing
less. For it is well known that I both like and
love and have always and do yet still use all exer-
cises and pastimes that be fit for my nature and
ability; and beside natural disposition, in judgment
also I was never either stoic in doctrine or anabap-
tist in religion to mislike a merry, pleasant and
playful nature, if not outrage be committed against
law, measure and good order. 4

79

Like all humanist teachers, Ascham was deeply con-
cerned with the moral growth of his students. In this
passage he laments over indiscipline and moral deteriora-
tion in his country, disrespect for age and authority, and
the boldness of youth:

But I marvel the less that these misorders be
among some in the court for commonly in the country
also everywhere innocency is gone, bashfulness is
vanished, much presumption in youth, small authority
in age; reverence is neglected, duties be confounded;
and to be short, disobedience doth overflow the
banks almost in every place, almost in every degree
of man.

Mulcaster was in agreement with Ascham and other
humanists that corporal punishment should be banned as a
general rule, but being very practical, he made allowances
for its use on occasions when a pupil did not respond to
gentle ways adopted by the teacher for his correction. In
this excerpt from his writing, he expressed his disap—
proval for physical punishment and recommended the best
course for the teacher to follow in his role as disci-
plinarian:

The best way to secure good progress . . . is

to ply [pupils] that all may proceed voluntarily
and not with violence, so that they will be ready
to do well and loathe to do ill, and all fear of
correction may be entirely absent. Surely to beat
for not learning, a child that is willing enough
to learn but whose intelligence is defective is
worse than madness.

Mulcaster placed the responsibility for prevent-

ing misdemeanours on the shoulders of the schoolmaster,

80

stating that "a schoolmaster, if he is really wise, will
prevent his pupils from committing faults."47
Mulcaster himself practised what he preached, for
he did not resort to the use of the rod on his pupils
during his tenure as school principal, yet had it around
as a gentle deterrent. According to him:
I myself had thousands of pupils passing through
my hands whom I never beat; because they needed it
not; but if the rod had not been in sight to assure
them of punishment if they acted amiss, they might
have deserved it.4é
Montaigne, the French humanist, believed that the
teacher's authority over the child "ought to be sover-
eign," yet he did not recommend corporal punishment for
correcting the child's misdeeds. He believed in disci-
pline as stated above, but this could be effected by the
teacher exercising "a firm gentleness" instead of using
"rods and ferules, horror and anxiety." "Away with your
violence," he urged, “away with this compulsion; nothing
I believe more dulls and degenerates a well-born nature."49
According to the Jesuits, the teacher had a disci-
plinary role as well. They insisted, however, that "pun-
ishments were to be as light as possible, and the master
was to shut his eyes to offenses whenever he thought he
might do so with'safety."50
Their general policy was:
Let there be no haste in punishing nor too much
in accusing. Let him [the teacher] rather dissimi-

late when he can without hurt, but abstain from
injury in word or attack or deed.

81

The function of the teacher as conceived by the
Jesuits was to teach, not to coerce nor to punish. In
fact, Jesuit teachers were exhorted to "unite the grave
kindness and authority of a father with a mother's affec-
tion."52 This necessitated arriving at some balance on
the teacher's part. Firmness was to be accompanied by
gentleness. Teachers were required to "identify and

53

endear themselves to their pupils.” The psychological

reason underlying this, acCording to Sacchini, was that
"when pupils love their master, they will soon love his

teaching."54

Diseiplinary Role of the Teacher in
Early Modern Times

 

The disciplinary procedures recommended by Rous-
seau were based on natural consequences, which constitute
the moral application of a negative education. The prin-
ciple of natural consequence was in keeping with Rousseau's
naturalistic philosophy. In practical terms this meant
that the child should be allowed to suffer the natural
results of his own acts without the intervention of the
tutor or any other adults to protect, pamper, or punish
him. This contrasts strongly with Plato's advocacy of
corporal punishment for misdemeanours committed by the
child. It must be pointed out, however, that Rousseau did
make allowances for rare occasions when it was acceptable

for the tutor to punish his pupil, so long as he made it

82'

appear that the punishment suffered came through natural
consequences and that his intrusion had nothing to do with
it. To use practical examples, if the child overate,
-Rousseau suggested that he be allowed to suffer the con-
sequences and be sick. The pain he suffered from his
indiscreet act would hopefully prevent him from repeating
a similar injudicious act. If he forgot, conveniently or
otherwise, to go on an errand at his parents' request to
buy food, let him remain hungry. If he broke a window,

let him remain in the cold and become ill. Besides suffer-
ing the discomforts of his illness, he would not be able

to go outdoors to play. In all these cases, the child
suffered either as a result of breaking natural laws or

as a result of his own imprudent actions; no human
authority, no rules and regulations imposed by society
were involved here. From these experiences the child would
learn by himself what he should do or refrain from doing.
The point here is that natural laws are consistent, unlike
man-made laws, and this is exactly how Rousseau wanted the
child to be educated, on a consistent basis.

Pestalozzi saw self-discipline as an ideal which
in effect meant discipline from within rather than from
without. In the classroom "Pestalozzi expected the teach-
ers to stimulate the children's interest sufficiently to
absorb them in their work and thereby avoid the necessity

of imposing discipline by external means."55

83

Being practical, Pestalozzi realized that there
were times when children would commit offenses despite
measures taken by their teachers to prevent their occur-
rence. On such occasions, he advised that it-was best to
let the child suffer the consequences of his actions--a
procedure reminiscent of Rousseau's approach to discipline
by natural consequences. "Let him see, hear, and find out
for himself, let him fall, pick himself up and make mis-

56 Pestalozzi counseled.

takes,"
Froebel's approach to discipline in the classroom
was based on the principle of self-activity. By self-
activity he meant any activity which originated from the
natural impulses of the child or one that was geared to
his nature such as manual arts, drawing, and modelling.
Such subjects lent themselves to free expression or crea-
tivity or education in the nature of play. He claimed
that when a child is truly self-active he is so absorbed
with the work he is doing that he cannot become a disci-
pline problem. Furthermore, the type of discipline which
resulted from self-activity was self-discipline, which in
Froebel's assessment was ideal, since it did not depend

upon the continuous presence of the teacher to maintain

itself.

84
Suggested Reasons for Changes in Teachers' Roles
in the Domain of Discipline

As noted earlier in this section of the chapter,
classroom discipline was very severe in Ancient Times.
This manifested itself in the frequent administering of
corporal punishment for minor offenses. Plato suggested
that corporal punishment should be meted out to the recal-
citrant pupil in order "to break his will" for he believed
that boys were characteristically stubborn and defiant.
we saw that Quintilian and Isocrates adopted a more humani-
tarian approach in this matter. Though there was still
severity in classroom discipline in many schools during
the Sixteenth Century, there were forces which exercised
moderating influences on the views of some educators rela-
tive to this question during this period of history, as
the attitudes of our Sixteenth Century exemplars reflect.
These forces included the following:

First, the growing influence of the Church. This
was evidenced by the attitude of the Jesuits, who advocated
mildness in disciplinary procedures. As Power noted,
"they tried to avoid chastising the students put under
their care, and if a boy could not be led, they refused to

57

drive him." On the whole, unmanageable students "were

not beaten and forced to conform in either an intellec-

58

tual or a physical sense." Because of the teachings of

the Church, the Jesuits believed that their attitudes

85

towards their pupils should manifest love and forgiveness
rather than hostility and violence.

Second, the spirit of humanism, which was char-
acterized by freedom for the individual and a tolerant
attitude towards others. These features of humanism
which the Sixteenth Century exemplars, Ascham and Mon-
taigne, espoused were presumably responsible for the lack
of austerity in their approach to teaching and their
rejection of corporal punishment in favour of other more
lenient disciplinary procedures such as, for example,
admonitions and "praise and reproof," advocated by Ascham.

Third, the Reformation, which aimed primarily at
correcting the abuses of the Church. In addition to this,
the Reformation promoted the Spirit of free inquiry, the
rejection of unquestioning authority, and a re-examination
of the traditions of the past which men accepted without
reason. For example, corporal punishment was traditional,
but the proponents of the Reformation rejected it in
favour of corrective measures that were more compatible
with Christianity.

Fourth, progress in the art of pedagogy from
Ancient Times to the Sixteenth Century. Admittedly, this
progress was not conspicuous on a widespread scale, judg-
ing from some of the objectionable practices customary in
many schools. However, Mulcaster, our very enlightened

exemplar, understood the basics of child psychology and

86

the rudimentary principles of teaching and even the con-
cept of readiness. With this knowledge as a background,

he had the perspicacity to see the flaws that were apparent
in physical punishment and other severe disciplinary pro-
cedures which he rightly thought would lead to estrange-
ment between teacher and pupil.

Changes in the role of the teacher relative to
discipline in the Early Modern era were attributable to
several factors, notably Naturalism in education. The
rationale behind the administering of most forms of severe
punishment was belief in the inherent depravity of the
child due to original sin. "The devil being at the bot-
tom of it all, many pious teachers thought it literally
necessary to beat him out of their children."58 Natural-
ism as espoused by Rousseau taught, on the contrary, that
the child was inherently good; hence there was no reason
to beat the devil out of him,lnn:to protect him instead
from society, the source of his corruption.

Rousseau rejected all forms of punishment in favour
of natural punishment, which is synonymous with punish-
ment by natural consequences as described in detail earlier
in this section of the chapter.

The teacher's role in the Pestalozzian approach
to the question of discipline is comparable to what it is
in the Rousseauan scheme, for Pestalozzi also believed

that the child should suffer the natural consequences of

87

his misdeeds. This is supported by Ramona Walch, who
concluded that:

Pestalozzi emphasized the need for teaching

obedience by an example which impresses the child
with the idea that disobedience and stubbornness
result in unfavourable consequences to himself.

He insisted that it was useless to teach obedience
by means of verbal admonitions when action is pos-
sible.

Froebel helped to change the teacher's approach
to discipline in the classroom by his claim that order
could be maintained when students were self-actively
engaged in school work. Since the principle of self-
activity was already described earlier in this chapter,
the writer will not elaborate on it here.

Froebel did not subscribe to the view that
depicted the child as totally depraved. Instead, he
insisted that every child had an element of divinity in
him. This led him to think that children preferred to do
good rather than evil. He advanced the hypothesis that
evil in the child originated when there was a "suppressed
or perverted good quality--a good tendency, only repressed,
misunderstood or misguided, lies at the bottom of every
shortcoming in man."60

According to Froebel, the same elements in man's
nature have the capacity of producing either vice or vir-

tue. The responsibility of guiding and stimulating these

elements of character correctly so that they would develop

88

into meritorious qualities is the disciplinary role of

the teacher.

Role Of the Teacher as Model in Ancient Times

In Ancient Times, the teacher was seen as a model
for his pupils to emulate. This image of the teacher was
also held in the Sixteenth Century by the Jesuits, who
endeavoured to be models of the Good Shepherd. In Early
Modern Times, imitation tended to be frowned upon; hence
modelling gave way to freedom to express one's individual-
ity. The writer will first describe conceptions of the
role of the teacher held by exemplars of Ancient Times in
the area of modelling versus the fostering of individual-
ity and note changes made in the conception of this role
in the Sixteenth Century and in Early Modern Times.

In Ancient Times, Isocrates saw the role of the
teacher as pre-eminently a model for his students to emu-
late.61 As such, he was expected to set a good example of
sterling character as well as scholarship. In order that
his good influences might have the maximum effect, Isoc-
rates saw the need for a good relationship between teacher
and student, since he believed that the instructor was in
an ideal position to have the greatest influence on his
students.62

Belief in the benefits that may be derived from

imitation of great examples was not peculiar to Isocrates,

89

but was consistent with the Ancient Greek educational doc-
trine of association and imitation, and great stress was
laid on this by such men as Socrates.63 In his treatise
on education, entitled Against the Sophists, Isocrates
clearly enunciated this doctrine:
The teacher, for his part must so espouse the prin-
ciples of the art with the utmost possible exact-
ness as to leave out nothing that can be taught and
for the rest, he must in himself set such an example
of oratory, that his pupils who have taken form
under his instruction and are able to pattern after
him will, from the outset, Show in their speaking a
degree of grace and charm which is not found in
others.

Isocrates was an examplar of his teaching in this
regard. In keeping with his doctrine that the final
inspiration of the pupil was derived from the work of the
master himself, he presented his own written Speeches,
impeccably prepared as models for study, analysis, and
imitation.65

Modelling as a role for the teacher was also advo-
cated by Plato, based on his conviction that a great deal
of learning was achieved through association and imita-
tion. Plato was over-concerned with the tendency of
pupils mocopy the attitudes and behaviour of adults in
their environment, especially those who held positions of
influence, like parents and teachers, hence his insistence
on having the child grow up among people who exhibited

exemplary qualities. One remembers Plato's plan in the

setting up of his hypothetical republic to send out of the

90

country the senior inhabitants so that their children
under ten years old may be taken possession of and taught
by guardians away from the contaminating effects of their
parents.

Further evidence to support this conviction of
Plato's could be found in his Apology, where Meletus
claimed in effect that any good Athenian such as a senator
or judge was able to improve youth by associating with

them.66

Plato was in accord with Greek pedagogy here, for
as Beck noted, the Greeks believed that
education is not purely mechanical but is largely
a question of the develOpment of habits and atti-
tudes developed through the influence of good
teachers.

Incidentally, the Greeks recognized the fact that
the influence may be also for evil, as Meletus stoutly
affirmed that Socrates, by his influence, was corrupting
the youth.68

Perhaps the exemplar who placed the greatest
importance on the role of the teacher as a model was Quin-
tilian, the Roman educator. It was for this reason that
he expected teachers to be almost paragons of virtue, and
required that they should display exemplary character,
uprightness, and decorum when dealing with their students.
His description of the good schoolmaster's virtues and

the role he is expected to play for the edification of

his pupils is worth quoting:

91

Let him [the schoolmaster] be free from vice
himself, and refuse to tolerate it in others.
Let him be strict, but not austere, genial but
not familiar; for austerity will make him unpopu-
lar while familiarity breeds contempt. Let his
discourse continually turn on what is good and
honourable; the more he admonishes, the less he
will have to punish. He must control his temper,
without however shutting his eyes to faults
requiring correction; his instruction must be free
from affectation, his industry great, his demands
on his class continuous but not extravagant.

In praising the recitation of his pupils he mus
be neither grudging nor over-generous; the former
quality will give them a distaste for work while
the latter will produce a complacent satisfac-
tion.

And again he wrote, "teachers must be strictly
moral; they must be friendly, clear, patient, generous
and ready to give praise."70

Undoubtedly it required a great deal of discipline
and self-control on the part of the teacher to live up to
Quintilian's expectation as a model, but his (Quintilian's)
insistence on such high standards of conduct is understand-
able when one remembers that boys came to the teacher of
rhetoric in early adolescence when they were very impres-
sionable and remained under his charge until they were

71
young men.

Conceptions of the role of the teacher held by the
Sixteenth Century exemplars with reference to modelling

versus the fostering of individuality will now be exam-

ined.

92

Role of the Teacher as Model in
the Sixteenth Century

 

Modelling in the Sixteenth Century was best exem-
plified by the Jesuits, who endeavoured to portray the
Good Shepherd in their attitudes. They upheld the theo-
logical virtues of faith, hope, and charity. They charged
no tuition fees, so that poor and underprivileged students
were not deprived of an education in Jesuit schools because
of their economic position. The Jesuits were continually
given support to maintain high moral standards and so serve
as good models for their students. Sacchini, a famous
Jesuit teacher, exhorted every member of the teaching con-
gregation "to remember how honourable his office is, as it
has not to do with grammar only, but also with the science

72 This

and practice of a Christian and religious life."
was endorsed by Jouvancy, another very highly respected
Jesuit leader, who in addition urged that "the teacher
should consider himself the shepherd of the tender lamb of
the flock of Christ."73 This tender portraiture of the
teacher epitomizes Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, the
perfect model of a Christian. The conceptions of the

Early Modern exemplars in this area of teaching will now

be examined.

Changes Made in Above Role in Early Modern Times
Rousseau's methodology catered to individual dif-

ferences. In his educational scheme, freedom was given

93

to the student to express his own ideas and to be creative
rather than imitative. Rousseau seemed to be against imi-
tation or copying of any kind because he feared that the
child would be merely parroting the views or opinions of
others, without understanding. This was probably why he
was against the child reading books at an early age.
Hence, instead of advocating an education based on mechan-
ically imitating the actions and expressions of other men,
Rousseau proposed a plan in his gmlle, whereby the child
could be educated through "contact with nature, guided by
his own natural interests, capacities and tendencies."74
The role of the teacher, consistent with Rousseauan peda-
gogical principles, was that of a facilitator and guide
rather than a model for imitation.

The pedagogical ideas of Pestalozzi and Froebel
were antithetical to imitation of models because they were
committed to the notion of the child as "unfolding" dur-
ing the course of his development. Both educators firmly
believed that all that the child was to become later in
life was already pre-ordained at conception. For this
reason, they thought it futile for him to imitate. The
teacher was expected to allow his pupil to express his

individuality in a free and supportive atmosphere.

94
Suggested Reasons for Changes in
the Above Teacher's Role

One reason for the change in the conception of the
teacher as a model for imitation was the impact of Rous-
seau's ideas on the subject. Rousseau's different orien-
tation was traceable to his Naturalism, which encouraged
the expression of individuality rather than imitation. A
negative attitude towards imitation was entertained by
Rousseau in the academic field, for he discouraged the
scientific atmosphere in the classroom, maintaining that

75 The

"the scientific atmosphere destroys science."
apparatus Emile uses in his investigation is to be self-
invented, because as Rousseau claims,

I would rather our apparatus was somewhat clumsy
and imperfect, but our ideas clear as to what the
apparatus ought to be and the results to be obtained
by means of it.

The rejection of imitation and emulation in favour
of allowing the child to express his unique individuality
was recommended by Froebel, who believed that each child
had a unique contribution to make to this world by virtue
of the fact that he was different from all the rest of
humanity. Imitation stifled creativity and precluded the
child from making his specific contribution.

For every human being has indeed but one thought,
peculiarly and predominantly his own, the fundamental
thought as it were of his life symphony, a thought
which he simply seeks to express and render clear

with the help of a thousand other thoughts, with the
help of all he does.77

95
Role of the Teacher inTthe Child's Moral
Training in Anc1ent Times

Plato's educational scheme was geared towards the
teaching of morality. In other words, the product of his
teaching was expected to be a moral person. His most
famous educational treatise, the Republic, centered around
the problem of securing justice in his hypothetical state.
The cardinal virtues of temperance, fortitude, prudence,
and justice were held in high esteem by the Ancient Greeks;
hence Plato sought to maintain these virtues in his gepppf
lle by indoctrination and censorship. The subjects that
were meticulously examined for material that was objection-
able were literature, art, and music. Plato thought that
they had a profound and lasting influence either for good
or evil on the children who read or enjoyed them. The
role of the teacher in the Platonic scheme was primarily
to teach morality. As such, he was expected to contribute
to the edification of his students at all times.

The other exemplars of Ancient Times, Socrates,
Quintilian, and Isocrates, also upheld the cardinal vir-
tues in high esteem and expected teachers to embody them
in their lives. Socrates was obsessed with the question
of whether virtue could be taught. His conclusion was in

the affirmative, though this was denied by Aristotle.

96
Role of the Teacherlin the Child's Moral
Training in the Sixteenth Century

The Jesuits, our Sixteenth Century exemplars,
believed that it was the role of the teacher to instruct
the child in morals. The Jesuit superiors required their
teachers to spend a great deal of time on moral and
religious teaching. The methodology used was essentially
indoctrination. Their reason for adopting this approach
was their belief that the child was too young to under-
stand the doctrines of the Church, some of which were
rather complex. Hence the teacher was supposed to drill
dogma into the minds of students through memorization of
lengthy catechisms.

Like all humanist teachers, Ascham was deeply
concerned with the moral growth of his students; hence he
regarded the ethical and moral training of pupils as one
of the roles of the teacher. His concern for morality
is evinced in this passage, in which he laments over
indiscipline and moral deterioration in his country, dis-
respect for age and authority, and the boldness of youth:

But I marvel the less that these misorders be

among some in the court for commonly in the coun-
try also everywhere innocency is gone, bashfulness
is vanished, much presumption in youth, small author-
ity in age; reverence is neglected, duties be con-
founded; and to be short, disobedience doth overflow

the banks almost in every place, almost in every
degree of man.78

97
Role of the Teacher in the Child's Moral
Training in Early Modern—Times

Rousseau's approach to moral training was very
different from that practised by exemplars in Ancient
Times and during the Sixteenth Century. It must be
pointed out, however, that Rousseau's methodology differed
with respect to the age of the student. In early child-
hood he advocated that the teacher should avoid verbal
instructions in morals altogether. This suggested that
he was averse to moral training through indoctrination.
Rousseau's approach to moral training was based on his
epistemological position that all knowledge was rooted in

. 79
sensory experiences .

Aristotle, the Ancient Greek phil-
osopher, applied this principle to the broad field of

knowledge when he stated, in essence, Nihil in intellectu

 

guod non prius in sensu, all knowledge came by means of
the senses. Rousseau likewise applied this theory to the
realm of conduct. In other words, Rousseau believed that
telling a child to refrain from doing a certain act or not
to be unjust to others is like writing out for him Ein-
Stein's theory of relativity, E = M C2, which of course

is meaningless to him. The rightness or wrongness of his
actions should be grounded in experiences which were more
relevant to the child. Opportunities arose through daily
common occurrences that the teacher could utilize to guide

his pupil along the pathway to morality. It was Rousseau's

98

contention that the child who was taught adult values
would form the habit of pretending to understand ethical
principles when in fact he did not. Hence values should
not be taught in the abstract as precepts.

Rousseau's approach came also in conflict with
Locke's suggestion to teachers and parents that they should
reason with their children when teaching them lessons on
morality, for Rousseau always maintained that "childhood
was the sleep of reason."80 According to him, reason was
the last of the faculties to be developed. Locke's
approach was what Rousseau called "beginning at the wrong
end," since children who were reasoned with following
Lockean principles became exceedingly silly.81 Moreover,
in his attempt to reason with and offer explanations to
the child, the tutor, Rousseau argued, would draw from
his own experiences which were foreign to his charge.

The moral training Rousseau recommended at this
stage of the child's life was Similar to his training in
discipline, which meant that it was to be based on natural
consequences. Consistent with Rousseauan methodology, the
tutor was viewed as an anti-teacher as opposed to moral
theorist, indoctrinator, or teacher of precepts.

It may be advisable here for the sake of speci-
ficity to compare again Rousseau's approach to moral
training with that of Plato, a representative of the

teachers of Ancient Times, and the Jesuits, exemplars of

99

Sixteenth Century pedagogy. Plato would have the child
indoctrinated by the tutor, allowing him to listen only
to material that was acceptable in the teacher's opinion
and excluding from his environment anything that would
undermine his ethical training. The pupil would be
taught how to act in certain hypothetical situations--
what to do and what to refrain from doing. The child's
experiences were not tapped for his moral training. It
was a similar approach used by the Jesuits in the Six-
teenth Century. Molding and indoctrination were again
the methods used. As Monroe pointed out, ”this teaching
congregation gave to their schools a molding power beyond
most others in the history of pedagogy."82

It should be pointed out, however, that Rousseau
modified his position in the teaching of morals when the
child reached adolescence. At this stage, instruction
before experience Should be the order now. The teacher's
responsibility was to warn his student of the dangers and
pitfalls that confront adolescents, especially in their
relationships with the opposite sex, since mistakes were
then irrevocable. Teaching morals through the use of
fables was now acceptable with Rousseau. This was in
contrast with the preceding stage of develOpment when he
cautioned the teacher not to use this medium for training
in morality, since the child was likely to misunderstand

the lesson intended to be taught and be corrupted by it

100

rather than be edified. Because of their maturity, the
possibility of misinterpretation by adolescent pupils
was not a problem.

Pestalozzi laid great stress not only on the intel-
lectual and physical development of the child but also on
his moral education; hence he saw the teaching of morality
as one of the roles of the teacher. However, Pestalozzi
preferred the teacher to teach morality through practis-
ing Christian virtues like love, faith, patience, charity,
etc., rather than through the medium of discourses, exhor-
tations, and the use of precepts. This was in keeping

with his principle of Anschauung, which meant in essence

 

that nothing came into the mind except by way of the
senses. In other words, Pestalozzi believed that in order
to know virtues truly, one had to experience them rather
than hear them described only. As Gutek put it:

Habituation to goodness was to be based on
real experiences rather than on verbal prescrip-
tions, homilies, sermons. In other word , moral—
ity was felt, rather than talked about.8

Pestalozzi himself put it plainly when he said:

The moral, intellectual and practical powers
of man must be nurtured within himself and not
from artificial substitutes. Thus, faith must
be cultivated by our own act of believing, not
by reasoning about faith; love by our own act of
loving, not by fine words about love; thought, by
our own act of thinking, not by merely appropriat-
ing the thoughts of other men; and knowledge by
our own investigation, not by endless talk about
the results of art and science.

101

Froebel advised that the best step for the
teacher to take to ensure the development of moral char-
acter in the child was to create an atmosphere rich in
love, acceptance, and understanding, in which the seeds
of moral character would take root. Froebel cautioned
educators to exercise care in their dealings with chil-
dren so that their original good nature would not be
defiled. This was his exhortation to educators:

It is certainly a very great truth and failure
to appreciate it does daily great harm-~that it gen—
erally is some other human being, not unfrequently
the educator himself, that first makes the child or
the boy bad. This is accomplished by attributing
evil--or at least, wrong motives to all that the
child or boy does from ignorance, precipitation, or
even from a keen and praiseworthy sense of right and
wrong. Unfortunately, there still are such men of
mischief among educators. To them, children and
boys are always little malicious, spiteful, lurking
sprites, where others see at most a jest carried
too far or the effect of too free an exercise of
spirit.65

Suggested Reasons for Changes in the Teacher's
Approach to Moral Training

 

Plato best represents the exemplars of Ancient
Times in his conception of the educator as a teacher of
morals, Since his approach was typical of the Greco-Roman
period. Depicting the boy as a mischievious sprite who
constantly got himself into trouble, Plato's first recom-
mendation to the teacher was to "break the will of the
child which in its perversity represented the evil of

86

human nature.” This was to be followed by molding and

102

indoctrinating the student, by presenting him with mate-
rial the teacher thought was appropriate after strict
censorship was observed.

During the Sixteenth Century, the approach to the
teaching of morals was in accord with the direct method of
ethical instructions as was seen earlier. Emphasis was
placed on precepts, principles, and doctrine as opposed to
the indirect method advocated by Rousseau.

The reason for the change in approach in Early
Modern Times was in part due to the influence of Rousseau,
who, in accordance with the fundamental teachings of
Naturalism, advocated "the development of moral character
from within, by experience, rather than from without by
indoctrination."87

Rousseau was particularly averse to indoctrinat-
ing children under the age of twelve years because he
believed that at this cognitive level of deve10pment they
were incapable of reasoning. Memorization without under-
standing was the problem here. As indicated in the quota-
tion above, Rousseau advocated the experiential approach
to the teaching of morality. This was consistent with
his stance in pedagogy.

Pestalozzi's influence also helped to bring about
change. His approach to the teaching of morality was

congruent with that of Rousseau's. This was due to his

103

fundamental agreement with the credo of Naturalism and
alSo his principle of Anschauupg, which stressed that

all education, intellectual and moral, should be grounded
in sensory experiences.

Froebel's approach, which was reconcilable with
the other two Early Modern exemplars, had some impact as
well in changing the teaching of morality in schools.
This educator was not in favour of abstract methods of
teaching, advocating instead concrete methods. He was
never tired of emphasizing that words alone were meaning-
less to children for they tended to ignore and forget

them soon.

104

Footnotes--Chapter IV

 

1Edward J. Power, Main Cugrents in the Hietory of
Education, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970),
p. 155.

 

 

2H. G. Good, A History of western Education (New
York: Macmillan, 1960), P. 25.

3E. B. Castle, The Teacher (Oxford University
Press, 1970), p. 31.

4Plato, The Republic, trans. Francis Cornford
(Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 68.

5

 

Ibid., p. 68.

61bid., p. 83.

71bid.

81bid., p. 72.

91bid., p. 73.

loIbid., p. 70.

llIbid., p. 90.

12John Brubacher, A History of tee Problems of
Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1947), p. 171.

13Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to PhilOSQphy,
rev. ed. (Benziger: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1973),
p. 77.

 

l4Homer Boroughs, Introdpetion to Secondary School
Teaching (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1964), P. 222.

15Plato, Meno, in The_Dialogues of Plato, trans.
Benjamin Jowett (Chicago: 1971).

16Sullivan, op. cit., p. 59.

17Paul Monroe, A Text Book in the History of Edu-
cation (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 420.

18James Mulhern, A History of Education (New York:
The Ronald Press Co., 1959), P. 323.

 

105

19Luella Cole, A History of Education (New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), P. 268.

0Monroe, op. cit., p. 461.

2 . .
lCarl Rogers, "Freedom to Learn," in Foundations

 

for e Theogy of Instruction and Educational Psthology,
edl C. H. Patterson (New York: Harper and Row, 1977),
p. 304.

zzlbid., pP. 306-10.

23Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara
Foxley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Everyman's Library,
1976), p. 85.

24Ibid., p. 209.

251bid., p. 71.

26Ibid., p. 96.

27Ibid., p. 84.

281bid., p. 19.

29Friedrich Froebel, The Education of Man, trans.
W. N. Hailman (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1895),
p. 7.

BoIbid.

31Ibid., p. 8.

BZIbido’ p. 90

33Frederick Mayer, The Great Teachers (New York:
The Citadel Press, 1967), p. 199.

34Romana Walch, taken from "Rede an sein Haus an
seinem 74 Geburtstage, den 12," in Pestalozzi and the
Pestalozzian Theory of Education, p. 86.

35Froebel, op. cit., p. 8.

36Harry N. Rivlin, Encyclopegia of Modern Educa-
tion (New York: F. Hubner and Co., Inc., 1943)3 p. 612.

37Plato, Laws 808, in The Dialogues of Plato,
trans. Benjamin Jowett.

 

 

 

 

 

106

38Ibid., section 808.

391bid.

40Plato, The Republic, trans. Francis Cornford
(Oxford University Press, 1967), Chapter X.

41Quintilian, Institute of Oratory, Book I, in
Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom, ed. Robert
Ulich, p. 110.

42Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster, ed. Lawrence
Ryan (New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 16.

43

 

Ibid., p. 20.

44Cole, op. cit., p. 263.

451616., p. 264.

461bid., p. 272.

47Ibid.

48Ibid.

49Robert Quick, Essays on Educational Reformers
(New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), p. 48.

SOIbid., p. 53.

SlIbid.

sszia.

SBIbid.

54Ibid.

55Michael Hearford, Pestalozzi (London: Metheun
and Co., Ltd., 1967), p. 70.

56Romana Walch, Pestalozzi and tpe Pestalozzian
Theory of Education (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Uni-
verSity of America Press, 1952), p. 156.

57

 

Power, op. cit., p. 405.

58Brubacher, op. cit., p. 186.

59Walch, op. cit., p. 156.

107

6oFroebel, op. cit., p. 121.

6J'Harry S. Broudy, Exemplars of Teaching Method
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965), p. 22.

62Ibid.

63Frederick Beck, Greek Education 450-350 (New

York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1964), p. 265.
64

 

Ibid.

65Broudy, op. cit., p. 21.

66Plato, Apology, in The Dialogues of Plato,
trans. Benjamin Jowett.

67Beck, op. cit., p. 218.

68Plato, Apology, op. cit.

 

69Quintilian, Institute of Oratory, Book II.

7OIbid.

71Power, op. cit., p. 187.

72Robert Schwickerath, Jesuit Education, Its

History and Principles (St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder, 1903),
p. 639.

 

 

73Ibid.

74Monroe, op. cit., p. 568.

75Rousseau, op. cit., p. 139.

761bid.

77Froebel, 0p. cit., p. 142.

78Cole, op. cit., p. 264.

79William Boyd, The Educational Theory of gean
Jacques Rousseau (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc.,
1963), p. xv.

 

0Rousseau, op. cit., p. 71.

81Boyd, op. cit., p. 53.

108

82Monroe, op. cit., p. 420.

83Gerald Gutek, Pestalozzi and Education (Chicago:

Random House, 1968), p. 136.

 

4Monroe, op. cit., p. 612.

85Froebel, op. cit., p. 124.

86Monroe, op. cit., p. 567.

87Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary gt Education
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959), P. 360.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, EVALUATION, AND CONCLUSIONS

The writer's purpose in the study was first, to
determine what the conceptions of teachers' roles were
in Ancient Times, during the Sixteenth Century, and in
Early Modern Times; second, to compare and note changes
in conceptions of roles held by exemplars of each his-
torical period with respect to such areas of teaching as
methods of instruction, discipline, moral training of
students, and modelling; third, to determine which con-
ceptions of roles persisted throughout the periods under
review; fourth, to evaluate these roles in the light of
modern pedagogy.

A number of educators and one organization whose
conceptions of the role of the teacher have had profound
impact on pedagogy were selected as exemplars. These
included Isocrates, Socrates, Plato, and Quintilian, who
represented the pedagogues of Ancient Times; Ascham,
Montaigne, Mulcaster, and the Jesuits, exemplars of Six-
teenth Century pedagogy; and Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and

Froebel, representatives of Early Modern Times.

109

110

Reasons for the choice of benchmarks, namely
Ancient Times, the Sixteenth Century, and Early Modern
Times, were advanced. In addition, an historical review
of institutional forms, theories, and concepts affecting
roles for the teacher in all three periods was presented.

It was seen that pedagogy in the Ancient Greco-
Roman World was influenced by philosophers like Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno and the philoSOphical schools
which the latter three founded, and by rhetoricians like
Isocrates and Quintilian.

Education in the Sixteenth Century was influenced
as follows: first, by the Renaissance, which was a great
revival of learning in the classics and the arts. Its
humanistic aspect promoted the spirit of free inquiry and
man's right to make decisions based on reason; second, by
the Reformation, which aimed primarily at correcting the
abuses of the Catholic Church but also to free its members
from unquestioning submission to ecclesiastical authority.

In Early Modern Times, education was influenced
by a number of ideologies, namely Naturalism, Romanticism,
Humanitarianism, Rationalism, and Nationalism. The two
which perhaps had the greatest impact on education were
Naturalism and Nationalism. Naturalism denounced the
artificialities of civilized man and promoted the idea
that there was goodness in nature. Accordingly, it

favoured education in harmony with nature. Nationalism

111

was a concerted attempt by European countries to foster
pride and loyalty to the state. To achieve their goals,
they placed emphasis on the study of the national language
as well as the history, culture, and literature of the
homeland.

Finally, the philosophical and pedagogical ideas
of Pestalozzi and Froebel helped to influence education
in Early Modern Times. Pestalozzi held the conviction
(in agreement with Rousseau and Froebel) that man was
inherently good, and that education could be psycholo-
gized. Pestalozzi also believed that the child was in

the process of unfolding. His principle of Anschauung

 

and his emphasis on education based on the natural devel-
opment of the child had profound influence on his concep-
tion of the role of the teacher.

Froebel's teleological view of man, which claimed
that all a person was to become later in his life was pre-
ordained at conception, shaped his image of the teacher.
His laws of unity, self-activity, and development influ-
enced the methodology he proposed for the teacher to carry
out his roles.

Some persistent roles of the teacher were identi-
fied and described. Those discussed were as follows:
first, providing the correct environment for learning;

second, the teacher's role in taking the initiative in

112

establishing a close personal relationship with his
students.

It was seen that Isocrates and Plato, two of the
exemplars'of Ancient Times, were advocates of the first
role, which was supported by the Jesuits in the Sixteenth
Century and by Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel in Early
Modern Times. This role is important for reasons that are
many and varied. In the first place, the environment
determines what and how the student learns. In other
words, an environment that is rich in excitement and chal-
lenges furnishes many learning experiences for the student,
as Opposed to one that is boring and lacking stimulation
for learning. This is why Froebelian kindergartens are
supplied with a great deal of material that stimulate-
children to learn.

Moreover, research findings have indicated that
intelligence scores improved appreciably when children
were moved from deprived environments to richer surround-
ings, where care and concern were shown and skillful teach-
ing and audio-visual aids to learning were provided.

In the second place, profound concern for the
environment had been Shown by educators like Plato and
Rousseau. So aware was Plato of the effects of the envi-
ronment for good or evil that he cautioned mothers to
exercise care in the choice of those they employed to work

with their young, impressionable children. Rousseau

113

showed concern for the influence of the environment when
he suggested that Emile be taken to the countryside away
from the city.

The relative importance of the environment and
heredity is still a controversial and debatable question.
The proponents for the environment claim that it is of
greater importance in shaping the child's behaviour, not
to mention the contribution it makes to his general edu-
cation. The opponents, on the other hand, have greater
faith in the child's heredity. Nevertheless, both sides
agree that a good environment is important in education.
Since therefore there is common agreement about the
effects of the environment on learning, it should be one
of the roles of the teacher to provide the best possible.

The establishment of a close personal relationship
between teacher and student was advocated by Quintilian
and Isocrates, who believed that academic, psychological,
and social advantages would accrue from it. This role
was supported by Ascham and the Jesuits because of their
belief in the teacher's influence for good or evil and
by Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel in Early Modern
Times, since their approach to teaching was based on a
close relationship between teacher and student.

The establishment of a close association between
teacher and student facilitates learning because it

relieves the atmosphere of tension and anxiety that tend

114

to be present in a learning situation, thus providing the
security that a student needs to develOp to his potential.

The advantage of this role to the student is sup-
ported from research conducted by Ryan which indicates
that warmth is the most important quality a teacher could
possess.l Students consistently marked this characteris-
tic of the teacher highest on the scale in a survey under-
taken by the above researcher. warmth develops when there
is rapport between teacher and student.

A good interpersonal relationship between teacher
and student helps to prevent or counteract discipline
problems in the classroom. This is so because such a
bond conveys to the child the interest and concern of the
teacher. Psychological findings indicate that many behav-
ioural problems arise when children feel neglected or have
the need to get attention.

Finally, a pleasant classroom atmosphere character-
ized by empathy, caring, prizing, and accepting is promoted
in such a relationship, allowing the student freedom to
grow, to make mistakes, and develop his potentialities.

The writer showed that role conceptions have
changed from Ancient Times to Early Modern Times, from the
teacher as indoctrinator, dispenser of information, and
authoritarian to the teacher as facilitator of learning,

guide, resource person, and dialectical gardener. The

115

above conceptions will now be evaluated in the light of
modern pedagogy.

Molding and indoctrination are not generally
recommended today as approaches to teaching. These
methods are based on the conception of schools as fac-
tories where all children are made to fit or conform to
specific predetermined criteria, despite differences in
their abilities, aptitudes, and dispositions, and without
respect for their uniqueness and individuality. Molding
and indoctrination stifle creativity and are therefore
antithetical to current approaches to teaching, which
encourage children to be resourceful and allow them free-
dom to learn and become self-actualized. In democratic
societies, emphasis is placed on the principle of allow-
ing individuals to think for themselves rather than having
judgments and opinions forced upon them. The pr0ponents
for democracy have argued that it is fascistic to pre-
determine what people should think or believe. The role
of the teacher should be to educate students in the effec-
tive processes of thinking, but decisions should be left
to the individual.

Moreover, molding and indoctrination presuppose a
static society where facts, morality, mores, attitudes,
and opinions held by the community are permanent and not
subject to change. It is not surprising that this approach

to teaching is associated with the idealists, who believe

116

that ideas endure throughout the annals of time and that
truth is changeless.

In order to function effectively in the rapidly
changing world, children should learn how to adapt to
change, to think critically and objectively, to distin-
guish relevant and irrelevant facts, to see relationships,
and to draw their own conclusions. Molding and indoctri-
nation tend to lead to ethnocentrism, which is divisive.
The world is fast becoming the "global village" envisaged
by Marshall McLuhan, due to rapid means of communication
and advances made in technology. Hence it is important
that people learn to dispense with their parochial or
prejudicial views, which molding and indoctrination tend
to foster.

Are there any advantages to these methods at all?
It has been argued by conservatives that molding and
indoctrination help children to know how to act in their
society, what attitudes to adOpt, what views to espouse,
etc. This gives them a measure of confidence and security
since one learns the behaviour he is expected to display.
Moreover, traditionalists believe that children could be
indoctrinated with favourable attitudes to patriotism,
philanthropy, and altruism. There is some worth in this
argument, though the demerits of this approach outweigh
the advantages that may be gained. The term "indoctrina-

tion" is itself full of negative connotations which have

117

arisen as a result of its association with detested
ideologies like Nazism or fascism. Hence it has been
regarded unfavourably as an approach to teaching in demo-
cratic countries.

The conception of the teacher as a dispenser of
information does not find favour with modern educators
for a number of reasons. In the first place, this method
of imparting information presumes children's heads to be
receptacles in which knowledge is to be poured. As a
result, it leads to cramming and memorization on the part
of students with little regard to reasoning and under-
standing. Moreover, it does not promote creativity, a
fault also associated with indoctrination as was indi-
cated earlier. It must be pointed out that memorization
has its place in education, especially in certain profes-
sional courses where the basic facts must be known "by
heart" and so become second nature. But it becomes
objectionable when it is overdone, when other approaches
to teaching are more effective, or when it becomes an end
in itself. Learning is viewed today as an active pro-
cess because of the impact of educators like Rousseau,
Pestalozzi, and Froebel, and more recently Dewey and Kil-
patrick, who systematized the project method. On the
other hand, dispensing of information suggests a teacher-
oriented school where children are glued to their desks

listening to the lectures of their teacher.

118

There are advantages to be derived from the
maieutic approach to teaching advocated by Socrates.
These center around the following. First, this approach
forces the student to think and be intellectually alert,
since he is aSked a series of questions for which he has
to provide thoughtful answers. Second, it tends to create
a questioning individual rather than a passive one who
takes ideas for granted. Third, it makes the student
realize his own ignorance in areas where he thought he
possessed wisdom. In other words, it helps him to know
his strengths and weaknesses. This is consistent with
the advice given by Socrates, namely ”know thyself."
Moreover, knowing one's self, especially one's limita-
tions, is the first step to the acquisition of knowledge.

Despite the advantages associated with the maieu-
tic role of the teacher, its disadvantages stand out. It
seems clear that this approach does not lend itself to
the teaching of content subjects like geography and his-
tory, and this was noted by Pestalozzi, who criticized it
on the same ground. On the other hand, it seems approp-
riate for logical subjects like mathematics and physics.
For this reason it could only be used successfully on a
limited basis.

The writer agrees with the criticisms of this

method raised by Barrow, namely:

119

In the first place some basic instruction would
surely have to take place in such matters as the mean-
ing of terms, the use of material and so on. Second,
there is not time to cover the ground by this rela-
tively time-consuming method. Third, the method seems
clearly more suited to some spheres of knowledge than
others: specifically it seems more suited to those
areas, such as mathematics and science, which are
characterized by some fairly clear and determinate
answers and which lend themselves readily to vali-
dation through direct perception, at least at a basic
level, than to spheres of human activity such as the
study of literature or history.2

The Socratic method was criticized by Skinner, the

behaviourist, who described the scene in which it is illus-
trated in the Meno as "one of the greatest frauds in edu-
cation."3 He further claimed that ”thousands of teachers
have wasted their lives in application of the Socratic
method."4 His grounds for criticism seem to center around
the fact that it is impractical because a student could
never learn all he is required to know by this time-
consuming approach. Lastly, the criticism levelled by
Pestalozzi against the limitations of the Socratic Method
is worth noting. The latter educator maintained that it
could only be used with advanced students since young
children do not have the linguistic skill to understand
the questioning nor the ability to formulate the required
answers into words.

The concept of the teacher as facilitator of

learning, which was advocated by Rousseau, is widely

accepted in modern pedagogy. Research findings indicate

that the teacher does not play as great a part in the

120

learning process as was once thought. In other words,
there may be much teaching and little learning. This was
what prompted Carl Rogers, a humanistic educator and one
of the prOponents of the role of the teacher as facili-
tator, to state that teaching is ”a vastly over-rated
function."5 Though Rousseau's conception of the role of
the teacher was in accord with that of Rogers, the
theories on which he based his arguments were not as
well-developed as those of his more modern counterpart.
At any rate, the same basic principles, namely that the
curriculum should be made for the child and not vice versa
and that there should be caring and trusting on the part
of the teacher, are discernible in Rousseau's method-
ology. -

Hopefully, when the teacher is cast into the role
of facilitator of learning, he will see the child as a
unique individual, striving to attain his potential in
order to become self-actualized. Since there is caring,
empathy, acceptance, and trust on the part of the teacher,
the classroom atmosphere becomes rich in warmth and there-
fore conducive to learning. As indicated earlier, the
importance of warmth as a characteristic of teachers was
supported by research conducted by Ryan, who found that it
was the most important quality a teacher could possess for
the promotion of learning. Other conceptions of the role

of the teacher in Early Modern Times will now be evaluated.

121

The role of the teacher as gardener is based on
the principle of "unfolding" associated with Froebel and
Pestalozzi. According to this approach, the teacher is
compared to the gardener, whose duty it is to provide the
correct nutrients for his plants, such as water, ferti-
lizers, etc., for their successful growth. In the same
way, the teacher is expected to provide the environment
that would produce the maximum amount of learning in his
classroom. This concept supports the principle that edu-
cation does not consist of putting more into the child but
allowing him to "unfold" according to his nature. This
seems to be the true meaning of education, for the term
was derived from the Latin word ”educere," which means
"to draw out," not "to put in."

The Froebelian and the Pestalozzian concept of
the teacher as a gardener is approved in schools today
with some modifications. For example, there is not such
great emphasis on the "unfolding" principle, though nature
is still used as a guide in teaching. The presence of
the kindergarten or children's garden in so many coun-
tries of the world today attests to the acceptance of
Froebel's pedagogical principles and his conception of
the role of the teacher as gardener.

Two other conceptions of the teacher's role which
have lost much of their appeal in recent times will be

evaluated. These are modelling and imitation. The stress

122

in Modern Times is on catering for the self-actualization
of the individual learner, and this could only be achieved
when the student is given the freedom to he himself, to
make his own mistakes and decisions in a nonthreatening
atmosphere.

Imitation of scholarly works tends to stifle
creativity and originality; hence it is not a preferred
approach to teaching today. Admittedly, some teachers,
by virtue of their scholarship and character, do provide
good models for imitation and this fact Should not be
overlooked. Moreover, some educators regard imitation
as useful, since by practising it on occasions, much time
and energy could be saved when, for example, the accumu-
lated knowledge of the past is copied. However, Monroe's
comments with which the writer agrees are worth quoting
here:

The intellectual and moral progress of the human
race have come through first tolerating and encour-
aging divergencies and diversities of thought,--the
essence of individuality,--and through the concep-
tion that mere identity of thoughts is not an end
in itself, but an incident in the accomplishment of
other ends. More Specifically, it is quite contrary
to the Spirit of a democratic and progressive society
to set up as a conscious end the idea that one, even
if he be only an immature child, shall repeat the
acts of another so as to arrive at a state of pas-
sive acquiescence in the ideas of others. Whether
as a psychological method or as a social standard,
imitation occupies a subordinate position.

Modelling of values and attitudes remains a con-

troversial area in teaching. Because of the rapid means

123

of transportation today, which have facilitated the
migration of people from one area to another, most modern
communities are multi-cultural, which poses a problem for
the teacher as a model. The question, of course, is
which culture should the teacher model-~middle class,
upper class, working class? Subcultures are submitting
proposals to school boards to employ teachers who can
understand and model the values of their culture. The
problem is more complex when there are various ethnic
groups in a school or class.

More recently, rejection of imitation and model-
ling came from the existentialists, who argue that in
the interest of authenticity, a basic tenet of their
philosophy, the individual Should not try to imitate
others, but should "do his own thing," and be genuine to
himself and others. Finally, changes in the conception of
the teacher's role as it relates to discipline will be
discussed and evaluated.

The old image of the teacher as a strict disci-
plinarian administering corporal punishment arbitrarily
to his students does little good for the profession and
for education as a whole. The ill-effects of physical
punishment have been pointed out by Isocrates and Quin-
tilian as alienating the child from the teacher and creat-

ing fears and anxieties which retard the learning process.

124

The use of praise and commendation as recommended
by the Sixteenth Century exemplars Ascham'and Mulcaster
seems to be a better course for the teacher to take in
disciplinary procedure. This method, essentially a type
of reinforcement and punishment approach, is reminiscent
of the modus operandi of the behaviourists.

Rousseau's discipline by natural consequences,
described in detail in Chapter IV, has certain advantages
but there are flaws in the system as well. The value of
such impersonal discipline is that it protects the rela-
tionship between child and teacher, since there is no
intervention on the part of the latter. Hence this pro-
cedure precludes the possibility of estrangement between
teacher and pupil. Moreover, this approach gives sta-
bility to the child's character, for as Rousseau points
out, natural laws are consistent and inevitable while
rules and regulations made by human beings are subject
to change.

There are several disadvantages inherent in
Rousseau's system. In the first place, the child may not
always see the connection between the misdeed committed
and the punishment since there may be a lengthy interval
separating both. In the second place, this type of pun-
ishment is based on the child's ability to reason, that
is, to see relationships between cause and effect. Hence

it could only be applied to students over twelve years of

125

age, for Rousseau maintained that children under twelve
are incapable of reasoning. "Childhood is the sleep of
reason.”7 In the third place, the damage done to the
child might be irreparable, not to mention the inconveni-
ences other innocent peoPle may suffer as a result of the
child's misdeeds. However, with certain modifications,
Rousseau's system could be satisfactorily implemented.

Self-discipline, effected through the use of
self-activity as advocated by Froebel, seems to be the
ideal type of discipline to foster and contrasts strongly
with the old practice of physical punishment. Its advan-
tages are that the self-respect of the learner is pre—
served, and it does not lead to alienation from the teacher
nor the school system since it precludes the arousal of
feelings of hate and antipathy towards authority. For
this reason self-discipline is the highest form of dis-
cipline.

The role of the teacher as a guide or resource
person was advocated by Rousseau, as was seen earlier.
This approach is based on the principle of self-directed
learning. The child is supposed to learn through his own
experiences with the teacher as a guide or resource person,
ready to help when the situation warrants it. The advan-
tage that may be derived from the teacher as guide or
resource person is that the child learns to discover

knowledge for himself, which is a joyful experience. The

126

psychological benefit that accompanies discovery learning
is the self-confidence that it builds in the learner. At
the same time this method teaches the student how to learn.
The project method, advocated by John Dewey and syste-
matized by William Heard Kilpatrick, is based on the role
of the teacher as a guide. It is recommended in educa-
tion today because in this approach, the child is involved
as an active agent in his own education and as a result he
learns by doing. Moreover, this approach is consistent
with the view of education as a process rather than a
product.

One problem with discovery learning is that it
seems more suitable for use with brighter students, or
for those that are more motivated to learn, since these
individuals tend to experience the joys of discovery more
frequently than their less intellectually able peers or
those lacking motivation. Guided discovery methods that
are in use today in some schools may solve the problem.

This study reveals that despite inadequacies in
their general approaches to teaching, exemplars of Ancient
Times had insights into the psychology and methodology of
teaching beyond what one would expect for educators of
their day. For example, Quintilian made provisions for
individual differences among his students, he knew the
rudiments of child psychology and how to use praise and

blame as a strategy in motivation. Both Isocrates and

127

Quintilian helped lay the foundation for change in pupil-
teacher relationships by advocating that teachers take

the initiative in establishing rapport with their students.
In addition, both educators rejected severe disciplinary
procedures that were customary during the time in which
they lived.

Another observation is that there was not always
consensus of opinion regarding conceptions of roles for
the teacher even among educators who represented the same
historical period. For example, Socrates saw the teacher
as midwife, while Plato saw him as a figure of authority.
In addition, the study showed that there were also differ-
ences in teaching methodology among the exemplars of
Ancient Times. Plato's advocacy of strict disciplinary
methods, including the use of corporal punishment for
recalcitrant students, contrasted strongly with the more
lenient measures supported by Isocrates and Quintilian.
Undoubtedly, severity in school discipline was the status
quo in Ancient Times, and this has been supported over-
whelmingly by educational historians, which make the
humane methods adopted by Isocrates and Quintilian even
more surprising.

Some of the same observations made about exemplars
of Ancient Times are applicable as well to those who rep-
resented the Sixteenth Century. To elaborate further,

methods of instruction adopted by the Jesuits contrasted

128

with those practised by Ascham and Mulcaster. The Jesuits
practised indoctrination, which led to much rote memoriza-
tion, while Mulcaster adjusted material to be learnt to
the cognitive level of his students in order to promote
understanding rather than cramming.

Ascham and Mulcaster were familiar with some of
our modern concepts in education though unfortunately
their knowledge of pedagogy did not seem to make much
impact on approaches to teaching. It is possible that the
time was not yet ripe for implementing their ideas; hence
many changes were not made in approaches to teaching
during the Sixteenth Century. To be more specific,
Mulcaster was familiar with the concept of readiness, even
though his knowledge of it was only rudimentary. Ascham
recognized that the establishment of a friendly relation-
ship between teacher and student was conducive to learn-
ing; he considered the nature of the child in his choice
of teaching methodology and rejected corporal punishment
as a method of discipline.

The impact on pedagogy made by Rousseau, Pesta-
lozzi, and Froebel in changing role conceptions of the
teacher seemed to have been more forceful. The efforts
of these educators were strengthened by the philOSOphi—
cal, religious, and social changes that were taking place

in Europe during the time in which they lived.

129

It Should be pointed out that while conceptions of
teaching roles have changed, pedagogical practices have
not changed at the same rate, creating a lag in the imple-
mentation of ideas. The many educators who have followed
the principles of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel have
helped to modernize education. Others who have rejected
their doctrine still resort to ancient practices of
authoritarianism, indoctrination, and teacher-centered
education. One realizes the difficulty in getting some
educators to implement methodology in democratic countries
where individuals are allowed the freedom to accept or
reject suggestions for change. Another reason for resist-
ance to change seems to be that some educators tend to
perpetuate the image of the teacher that they held in
their childhood and as a result teach according to the
methodology by which they themselves were educated.

Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel undoubtedly
held conceptions of roles for teachers which were far in
advance of the time in which these educators lived. It
is hoped that in the course of time their many brilliant
suggestions for changing the system will be found accept-
able to all educators so that there would be even more
widespread implementation of the roles these educational

reformers conceived for the teacher.

130

Footnotes--Chepter V

 

1David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers
(Wisconsin: George Banta Co., Inc., 1962).

2Robin Barrow, Plato and Education (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976), p. 37.

3C. H. Patterson, Foundations for a Theory of
Instruction and EducationaIP Psychology (New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 1977), p. 223.

4

 

 

Ibid.

sIbid., p. 304.

6Paul Monroe, A Cyclopedia of Education (New York:
Macmillan, 1925), p. 390.

7Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara
Foxley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Everyman's Library,
1976), p. 106.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

131

Ascham,

Froebel,

Luther,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Roger. The Schoolmaster. Edited by Lawrence
Ryan. New York: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Friedrich. The Education of Man. Translated by
W. N. Hailman. New York: D. Appleton and Co.,
Inc., 1895.

. Peda o ics of the Kindergarten. Translated by
Josephine Jarvis. New York: Appleton, 1895.

. Educatign by Development. Translated by
Josephine Jarvis. New York: Appleton, 1909.

. Froebel's Chief Writings on Education. Ren-
dered’in English by S. S. Fletcher. New York:
Longman's Green and Company, 1912.

. Frieerich Froebel-~A Selection From His Writ-
ings. Compiled by I. Lilley. London: Cambridge
University Press, 1967.

 

Martin. Luther on Education. Excerpts from the
writings ofiLuther, compiled by F. V. N. Painter.
St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1928.

Mulcaster, Richard. Positions. New York: Columbia Uni-

versity Teachers' College Press, 1971.

Pestalozzi, Heinrich. How Gertrude Teaches Her Children.

Plato.

Translated by Lucy E. Holland and Francis Turner.
London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1915.

. Leonardgend Gertrude. Translated by Eva
Channing. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1892.

The Republic. Translated by Francis Cornford.
Oxford University Press, 1967.

132

133

. Protagoras. In The Dialogues of Plato. Trans-
lated by Benjamin Jowett. Chicago, 1971.

 

. Laws. In The Dialogues of Plato. Translated
by Benjamin Jowett. Chicago, 1971.

. .A 010 . In The Dielogues of Plato. Translated
by Benjamin Jowett. Chicago, 1971.

. Meno. In The Dialogues of Plato. Translated
by Benjamin Jowett. Chicago, 1971.

Quintilian. Institutes of Oratory. In Three Thousand
gears of Educational WiSdOm. Edited by Robert
Ulich. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1950.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Emile. Translated by Barbara
Foxley. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Everyman's

Library, 1976.

Secondary Sources

Anderson, L. F. Pestalozzi. New York: A.M.S. Press,
’ Inc., 1970.

Barlow, Thomas. Pestalozzi angtAmerican Education.
Univeristy EICColorado Press, 1977.

Beck, Frederick. Greek Edtcation 450-350. New York:
Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1964.

Boroughs, Homer. Introduetiop_to Secondary School Teach-
ing. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1964.

Boyd, William. The History of Western Education. London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1950.

. The Edugetional Theory of Jeam Jacques Rousseau.
New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1963.

Broome, J. H. Rousseau: A Study of His Thougpts. London:
Edward Arnold Pfiblishers, 1963.

Broudy, Harry. Exemplars of Teaching Method. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1965.

134
Brubacher, John. A History of the Problems of Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1947.

Bruner, Jerome. The Process of Education. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Butts, Freeman. A Cultural Histoty of Educatiee. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1947.

Castle, E. B. Ancient Education and Todey. Suffolk,
England: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press), Ltd.,
1965.
. The Teacher. Oxford University Press, 1970.

Claydon, Leslie. Rousseau on Education. London: Mac-
millan, 1969.

 

Cole, Luella. A History of Education. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Compayre, Gabriel. The History of Pedagogy, London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1913.

 

. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi. New York: Thomas
Crowell and Co., Publishers, 1970.

 

. Monteigne and Education of the Judgment. New
York: Thomas Crowell and Co., Publishers, 1908.

Cubberley, Ellwood. Readings in the History of Education.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1920.

 

Davidson, Thomas. A Histoty of Education. New York:
Charles Scribner and Sons, 1908.

 

Donohue, J. W. Jesuit Education. New York: Fordham
University Press, 1963.

 

Downs, Robert. Friedrich Froebel. Boston: Twayne Pub-
lishers,“i978}

 

Duggan, Stephen. A Student's Text-Book in the History of
Education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., 1948.

 

Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon
and Schuster Publishers, 1930.

 

135

Eby, Frederick. The History and Philosophy of Educationy
Ancient andiMedieval. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.,4I940.

 

Frost, S. E. Historical and_Philosophical Foundations of
western Educatiem. Columbus, Ohio: Charles
Merrill Books, Inc., 1966.

Gage, N. L. Handbook of gesearch on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1963.

 

Good, Carter, ed. Dictionary of Education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Good, H. G. A History of Western Education. New York:
Macmillan, 1960.

 

Graves, F. P. A History of Education. New York: Mac-
millan, 1923.

 

Green, J. A. Life and Wort of Pestalozzi. Baltimore:
Warwick and York, Inc., 1912.

 

Guimps, Roger de. Pestalozzi: His Life and Works. New
York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896.

Gutek, Gerald. A History of the western Educational
Experience. New York: Random House, Inc., 1972.

 

 

. Pestalozzi and Education. New York: Random
House, 1968.

 

Hall, John. Rousseau. London: Macmillan, 1973.

Hearford, Michael. Pestalozzi. London: Methuen and Co.,
Ltd., 1967.

 

Hoyt, Charles. Studies in the Histpry of ModetnEduca-
tion. New York: Silver, Burdett and Co., 1908.

Hughes, James. Froebel's Educational Laws for All
Teachers. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1903.

Hughes, Thomas. Loyola. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1892.

Krfisi, Herman. Pestalozzi: His Life and Influence.
Cincinnati? Wilson Hinkle and Co., 1875.

Lawrence, Evelyn, ed. Friedrich Froebel and English
Education. London: Routledge, 1969.

 

136

Livingstone, Richard. Plato and Modern Education. New
York: Macmillan, 1944.

Lodge, Rupert. The Philosophy of Plato. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1956.

. Plato's Theory of Education. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1956.

Marrou, H. A History of Education in Antiquity. New
York: Sheed and ward, 1950.

Mayer, Frederick. The Greet Teachers. New York: The
Citadel Press, 1967.

Misawa, Tadasu. Modern Educators and Their Ideals. New
York: D. Appleton and Co., 1909.

Monroe, Paul. A Cyclopedia of Education. New York:
Macmillan, 1925.

. Source Book in the History of Education. New
York: Macmillan, 1953.

. A Text-Book in the‘History of Education. New
York: Macmillan, 1953.

Mulhern, James. A History of Education. New York: The
Ronald Press Co., 1959.

Nakosteen, Mehdi. The History and Philosophy of Education.
New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1965.

Nettleship, R. D. The Theory of Education in Plato's
Republic. London: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Patterson, C. H. Foundations for a Theory of Instruction
and Educational Psychology. New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1977

 

Power, Edward. Main Currents in the Histo_y of Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.

Quick, Robert. Essays on Educational Reformers. New
York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899.

Reisner, Edward. Historical Foundations of Modern Edu-
cation. New York: Macmillan, 1938.

Rivlin, Harry, ed. Encyclopedia of Modern Education. New
York: F. Hubner and Co., Inc., 1943.

137

Rogers, Carl. ”Freedom to Learn.“ In Foundations for a
Theory of Instructions and Educational Psychology.
Edited by C. H. Patterson. New York: Harper and
Row, 1977.

 

 

Rusk, Robert. The Doctrines of the Great Educators.
London: Macmillan, 1969}

 

. A History of Infant Education. London: Uni-
versity of London Press, 1967.

 

Ryans, David. Characteristics of Teachers. Wisconsin:
George Banta Co., Inc., I962.

 

Sahakian, William. Rousseau as Educator. New York:
Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1974.

Schwickerath, Robert. Jesuit Education: Its History and
Principles. St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder, 1903.

 

 

Smail, S. Quintilian on Education. Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1938.

 

Smith, Samuel. Heinrich Pestalozzi. New York: Twayne
Publishers, Inc., 1975.

Sullivan, Daniel. An Introductionto Philosophy. Rev.
ed. Benziger: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1973.

Ulich, Robert, ed. Three Thousand Years of Educational
Wisdom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1950.

Walch, Romana. Pestalozzi and the Pestalogzian Theory
of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1952.

 

weber, Evelyn. The Kindergarten. New York: Teachers'
College Press, 1969.

 

White, Jesse. The EducationalIdeas of Froebel. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1907.