Matter and Method in Education

Matter and Method in Education IN. V. Searfe The controversy which centres on the relative importance of subject-matter and methods of teaching in the school is not new, but it tends to become increasingly confused as it engages the attention of a greater number of people. Prejudiced views have naturally multiplied, and so, too, have the approaches to the problem. As the controversy clouds rather than clarifies the issues, it seems wise to try and reconcile the opposing points of view, rather than to engage in the conflict. Thus the purpose of this article is, first, to explain brietly what these points of view are and, second, to suggest ways in which their opposition may be resolved. The two sides in the controversy have certain characteristics in common which make a resolution difficult. One is the laudable but, nevertheless , fallacious attempt to present the controversy as a simple black and white argument. A second is the tendency to assume that the apparently opposing points of view are mutually exclusive. But it may be found that they are, in fact, complementary. The best education never occurs when matter and method are in opposition; only when both are harmoniously blended together can students derive the maximum benefit. A third characteristic is the tendency of each side to assume that the other is arguing about the same aspect of school life. Those who contend for the importance of subjects-particularly of classical subjects-nearly always have in mind high-school students of high intelligence, whereas their opponents are much more concerned with young children and students of low mental ability. As a preliminary, it will be necessary to indicate the many different guises under which the proponents of matter and of method may be found. The proponents of matter may be loosely styled conservatives, traditionalists , or idealists. They believe in subject-centred schools where high standards of scholarship are maintained. They stress the value of 242 MATTER AND METHOD 243 subject-matter in sharpening the wits, and assume that the struggle to master and memorize a disciplined array of facts will automatically develop both intelligence and character. They also hold that it is good training for a child to learn to concentrate by being forced to perform tasks which he does not necessarily like; tasks which are either good for him now or will be useful to him in adult life. Others emphasize the importance of a knowledge of history and of the cultural heritage. A study of a hundred great books will, in their opinion, reveal the wisdom and intellectual riches of the past, humanizing and civilizing those who read them assiduously. They deprecate any attempt to concentrate on technical and vocational education, which can only reinforce the dangerous materialism of contemporary society. A further opinion held by members of this group deserves to be mentioned. They tend to favour authoritarian discipline, being utterly opposed to licence of any kind. The proponents of method are usually called progressive educators, but the term "naturalist" probably describes them better, believing· as they do in the child-centred school. They claim that it matters more how a topic is taught than what is taught, and are, in fact, doubtful of the value of subject disciplines by themselves at all. They want to educate through and for immediate interests and needs, and see little value in an extended study of the past. They claim that science is the most fitting and important subject today and that children are, in any case, realistic and materialistic, understanding immediate and concrete situations best. Authoritarian discipline, they affirm, damps down enthusiasm, initiative, spontaneity, and curiosity, each of which is essential to education. Both the extremes want every student put through a uniform educational process. For both hold a static, rather than dynamic, view of society, in which the individual is no longer sacred and is regarded as less important than the process or the state. Thus neither side will accept the interpretation of school discipline as a discipleship, or "a willing following of a leader of merit," where the teacher is the wise, benevolent leader, not the dictator, nor yet the unobtrusive observer. The ideal of balance advocated in...