If we ask why English should have a place in the curriculum and what its purpose is, we will hear many competing voices. The revision of the national curriculum ignites such debates (Pope, 2002) and the fact there have been five versions of the national curriculum since its inception in 1989, indicates the changing thinking about what it means to study English (Fleming and Stevens, 2010). However, to understand the present we do have to look, albeit briefly, at the past.
English as a subject to be studied in its own right was only recognised towards the end of the 19th century. Poulson (1998:17) notes:
Its emergence as a distinct subject reflects the interplay of differences of opinion about its primary purpose in the education system and differing ideas as to what should constitute its proper content and how it should be taught.
The expansion of the education system through the Education Act of 1870 coincided with an expansion of democratic rights to a broader electorate and
54
consequent imperative to educate the lower classes. The inclusion of English as a subject in the publicly funded elementary schools was to provide functional literacy emphasizing the knowledge that was useful for getting on in life. Upper and upper middle-class children were educated through public and endowed schools and the curriculum was based on classical languages and texts. Poulson, (1998:18) notes that both Latin and Greek were requirements for entry into Oxford and Cambridge and, despite calls for education reform to reflect the changing needs of society, public schools were resistant. Whilst the benefits of a classical education were disputed, there were concerns that a purely functional education would not provide the aesthetic and moral fibre that should be the underpinning of civilised society. The education reformer and inspector of schools, Matthew Arnold, promoted the study of English literature to provide a moral and aesthetic education for the masses. This would enrich pupils and guard against the influences of popular culture by educating them about the value of ‘high’ literature. By 1882 English had become a compulsory subject in elementary schools and by the end of the 19th century was being recognised as a subject in its own right, although initially only regarded as suitable study for women. Thus, we see the emergence of two strands of English: functional literacy and grammar, and the enriching power of literature, along with the impact of class and gender on curricular provision and content.
Poulson (1998:24) argues that the place and purpose of English in the curriculum is inextricably bound up in the political, social and cultural concerns of the time. The Newbolt Committee in 1921 (Departmental Committee of the Board of Education, 1921) established English as a core subject in the curriculum but again we see the battle for the purpose and role of English emerging. Marshall (2000:22) identifies the following paragraph from the report to illustrate the way in which English is delineated through Matthew Arnold’s understanding of the civilising power of English Literature. English:
… in its fullest sense connotes not merely acquaintance with a certain number of terms, or the power of spelling these terms
55
correctly and arranging them without gross mistakes. It connotes the discovery of the world by the first and most direct way open to us, and the discovery of ourselves in our native environment … For the writing of English is essentially an art, and the effect of English literature, in education, is the effect of art upon the development of the human character (Departmental Committee of the Board of Education, 1921, cited in Marshall, 2000:22).
The tone of the Newbolt Report is predominantly patriotic set against the backdrop of a country emerging from a world war and recognising the impact of the Russian revolution (Protherough and Atkinson, 1994:7; Poulson, 1998:25; Marshall, 2000:23). A further purpose for English then was nationalistic, to instil a sense of nationhood through pride in a shared cultural literary background, providing a unifying core between classes:
Such a feeling for our own native language would be a bond of union between all classes and would beget the right kind of national pride. Even more certainly should pride and joy in the national literature serve as such a bond (Departmental Committee of the Board of Education, 1921, cited in Poulson 1998:25).
Marshall (2000) notes that while Arnold saw literature as a force that worked against industrialisation and mechanisation, the Newbolt Report emphasised the personal growth of the child nurtured through encounters with literature and the arts in its understanding that language should be taught for expressive purposes. However, as Poulson (1998:26) notes, a further aim of the report was to ensure standardised language use and the eradication of regional and dialect forms which were not considered the mark of an educated class.
The debates emerging are to do with the function and purpose of English in the curriculum. Whilst there are claims for developing the personal and aesthetic
56
aspects of the individual, there is much more to do with promoting a view of English that is ‘civilising’. This would provide a standard and unifying model to aspire to, not just of language but also of values and taste, thus providing a code to live by and, significantly, by which to be judged. The Newbolt Report also signalled the separation of literary from linguistic strands in the English curriculum; a delineation that continues today in the separate external examination and degree subjects (Yandell, 2014).
Protherough and Atkinson (1994:8-9) identify three views of English emerging from the Newbolt Report: a view of English that held back the tide of industrialisation and the impact of popular culture; one that was creative and expressive and which encouraged active engagement and one that upheld the values of cultural tradition and values through the enshrinement of canonical texts.
These debates crystallised with the work of Frank Leavis in the 1920s and 1930s (Marshall 2000), and once again the context is important to consider. In the inter- war years there was a sense of nostalgia for a time and way of life that seemed to be passing. It was a time of change socially and culturally, with the development of the mass media and communication which made newspapers, magazines, cheap books and cinema readily available to all. To some this was perceived as a threat to traditional cultural values and Leavis’ focus on the critical study of English Literature was to become very influential. It is from Leavis that the idea of canonical texts which are worthy of study, emerged (Marshall, 2000) and became enshrined in the English national curriculum which, as discussed in the previous section, continue to spark debate and contention today.
The current debate about literature, however, encompasses more than what has been omitted from, or marginalised in, the prescriptive lists of literary texts to be studied in the national curriculum in England. A further issue of contention raised by Goodwyn (2012b), is the opportunity for literary reading which draws upon the affective dimension of engagement with the text. ‘Cultural awareness and expression’, is one of the European Commission’s Key Competences for Lifelong
57
Learning (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006:12), and provides a perspective which moves beyond preservation and reverence to the idea that the study of one’s own culture provides ‘the basis for an open attitude towards and respect for diversity of cultural expression’. In doing so it acknowledges that appreciation of cultural artefacts involves more than detached intellectual engagement, but also, ‘the importance of the creative expression of ideas, experiences and emotions’. Goodwyn (2012b) argues that whilst the study of literature is firmly enshrined in the national curriculum, its status has been diminished by the focus on narrow, objectives-driven approaches which fail to engage the person in the reading. Yandell and Brady (2016:54) take this argument further and note that the danger of a ‘knowledge-led’ curriculum, which presents itself as distinct from the experiences and knowledge that pupils bring with them to the classroom, is that it overlooks the understandings that emerge from the ‘local’ and ‘particular’. They make the point that how students ‘read and respond to the text is a product of culture and history – of different, and specific, cultures and histories’. They conclude that the work in classrooms is ‘cognitive and emotional: intellect and affect are not neatly separable’ (Ibid.:55).
This brief overview of the historical antecedents of English provides some understanding of the competing claims for the subject. Interwoven within all of this are implications for pedagogy.
2.7 Pedagogy
It is worth beginning with a definition of the term ‘pedagogy’ from Alexander (2004:11):
Pedagogy is the act of teaching together with its attendant discourse. It is what one needs to know, and the skills one needs to command, in order to make and justify the many different kinds of decisions of which teaching is constituted.
58
The history of English as a subject, its content and purpose, inevitably carried with it a debate about how the subject was to be taught. The establishment of the English Association in 1907 did much to identify not just subject content but also pedagogy (Doyle, 1989; Poulson, 1998). The Association tried to unify the strands of the subject although strongly held beliefs about the purpose of English as a subject continued to cause tensions. Within the arena of pedagogy new thinking into child development was beginning to have an impact. By the 1890s, Rousseau’s theories about the ways in which children were motivated and the need to recognise individuality were gathering support and there was criticism of methods of memorisation and rote learning. Poulson (1998: 23) notes that: ‘Particularly important for English was the recognition of a connection between individual development and self-expression.’
The Progressive movement, then might be deemed to have begun in the 19th century and become more clearly delineated throughout the 20th century with the focus on personal growth, expression and creativity. Edmund Holmes writing at the turn of the century, focused on the importance of potential and creativity and questioned the constraining impact of formal examinations (Marshall, 2000:25). The significant work of Dewey focused on the way in which children learned as being as important as what they learned. Dewey (1966, cited in Marshall, 2000) described the purpose of a ‘traditional’ education as preparing young people to be docile, receptive and obedient.
It is easy to see in these arguments a neat division or polarisation between ‘traditionalists versus progressives’ (Pope, 2002) but this is too simplistic and does not take into account the way ideas and philosophies of education develop and the context in which they develop.
Alexander (2004:8) argues that pedagogy cannot be a purely ideological activity. He goes on to note:
59
Ideology may define the ends in teaching and hint at aspects of its conduct, but it cannot specify the precise means. Professional knowledge grounded in different kinds of evidence, together with principles which have been distilled from collective understanding and experience are also called for.
Alexander (2004:10) identifies the ‘oppositional pedagogical discourse’ which has emerged over the past fifty years underpinning ideological positioning, and contrasts this view with understandings of pedagogy in continental Europe which bring together under one concept:
… the act of teaching and the body of knowledge, argument and evidence in which it is embedded and by which particular classroom practices are justified.
Alexander (2004) argues that discussion about pedagogy takes a subsidiary role in the UK because, unlike many European countries where the curriculum has been long-centralised, the curriculum remains open to contestation and debate. As already discussed in this literature review, this remains a significant feature of the subject English. Professor Brian Cox, who was instrumental in writing the first national curriculum, noted that the ill-defined boundaries of the subject posed problems (DES 1989:2.2) whilst Protherough and Atkinson (1994:14) state: ‘There is clearly no consensus here about what is to count as English.’
That English has long been a contested subject is evident in the schools of thought that have helped to shape its history. This is an area well researched by Fleming and Stevens (2010) and also Marshall (2000), who notes that:
Ball, Kenny and Gardiner (1990) add caution to the idea that schools of thought affect classroom practice on anything more than a limited scale (Marshall, 2000:23-24).
60
This idea had been explored by Professor Brian Cox in his discussions with English teachers before writing the report, English for Ages 5 – 16 (DES, 1989). Cox (1991:21) identified five views about the purpose of English in the curriculum: personal growth, cross-curricular, adult needs, cultural heritage and cultural analysis, but did not see these views as being mutually exclusive or even ‘sharply distinguishable’, rather he felt that such views recognised the breadth of the curriculum. Goodwyn and Findlay’s (1999) research into English teachers’ beliefs about English found a strong consensus in the importance of the personal growth approach along with a growing recognition of the place of cultural analysis.
The question to ask is how far these occasionally polarised, and sometimes complementary, schools of thought, might have pedagogical implications in the classroom. To explore this further we need to return to teachers’ personal epistemologies of subject. Political and educational commentators who position themselves firmly at end points of a spectrum do so to provoke debate. Thus, Marenbon’s comment (1994, cited in Brindley, 1994:24) that ‘in English, as surely as in mathematics or chemistry, there is right and wrong’, is likely to generate an oppositional response rather than explore the nuances of the subject from either perspective. However, it does present an epistemological viewpoint and one which is worth debating for its understanding of the nature of knowledge in English. Wilson and Myhill (2012:556) cite Maggioni and Parkinson (2008) who note that:
… the way in which teachers conceptualize the nature and justification of their subject-matter knowledge and their ideas about students’ learning influence the features of classroom discourse.
Alexander (2012:16) describes classroom talk as the heart of pedagogy and that genuinely dialogic talk should be: ‘collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful’. He cites Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur and Prendergast (1997) who state that:
61
What ultimately counts is the extent to which teaching requires students to think, not just to report or repeat someone else’s thinking (Nystrand et al., 1997, cited in Alexander, 2012:17).
Thus the way knowledge is conceptualized might lead to a dualist, right or wrong approach to transmitting knowledge, or to an approach that recognises pupils as co-constructors of knowledge and utilizes dialogic practice. A further complication might lie in the challenges presented by high stakes assessment which lead teachers to adopt conflicting epistemological positions which play out in associated pedagogical practices. Another question to ask is how deep-seated and malleable, personal epistemological beliefs might be when enacted in the classroom? Wilson and Myhill (2012:557) cite Nystrand et al.’s (1997) study which ‘revealed a discrepancy between Language Arts teachers’ espoused beliefs in expressive, dialogic practice and the more monologic discourses that many of them appropriated’.
Thus, the way that philosophies underpinning the subject English are embraced and enacted by individuals in the classroom, and the wider social and political contexts of education will shape pedagogical approaches. What would seem to be important then for student teachers is to have the space to explore the factors that shape pedagogy and to examine and debate the polarised responses that the subject English generates.