The Idea of Method in Teaching and Doing Research

The Idea of Method in Teaching and doing Research. A post-Colonial View on the Roots of Educational Theory after Pierre de la Ramée (1515-1572)

By Professor Yngve Nordkvelle, Lillehammer College, 2626 Lillehammer, Norway

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20–23 September 2000

The rise of educational theory is interesting to follow for a large number of reasons. A Post-Colonial view on this process means that I have tried to view one particular epoch in European history when the field of educational theory was in an embryonic phase, from a potential critical outsiders’ position in order to challenge hegemonic assumptions on behalf of the West. Post-Colonial theory is primarily indebted to Edward Said, who inaugurated the field of Post-Colonial studies (Said 1978, More-Gilbert 1997). For many of us who are interested in this field it gives a political framework to analyse any theoretical field as socially constructed by social forces, not only gender, social class or capitalism/socialism, but also geopolitically as the struggle for geographical, political and cultural hegemony.

When Modernity commences is a topic of much debate. Toulmin argues that Modernity is not properly understood if one fail to recognise the significance of the social, political and scientific development in the Renaissance. He argues that the heritage from the Humanists and scholastic thinking was vital for the development of the "new rationality" that is so characteristic of the period of the Enlightenment (1990). I would also argue that the characteristics of this period must be understood on the background of the geopolitical changes that took place after the discovery of the "New World". Enrique Dussel suggests that Modernity was born when Europe "was in a position to pose itself against an other, when, (..) Europe could constitute itself as a unified ego exploring, conquering, colonising an alterity that gave back its image of itself" (1993, p.66). The history of philosophy, social science as well as educational theory is quite undifferentiated in this period, until they mature as independent disciplines at the late 18th century, and became established as university disciplines. By then an Eurocentric cosmology has matured as more or less hidden assumptions for their knowledge base, and the universities have become contributors to the adventures of the emerging colonial powers. Philosophy is by 1715 for instance, an activity understood only as a result of the "climatic" conditions of areas like Germany, Italy, France and England (Heumann 1715, after Rørvik 1998: 11)[1]. Since the discovery of the New World, but also stemming from the recurrent encounters between the Occident and Orient through European history the Eurocentrism develops gradually. Martin Bernal delivers a powerful argument for the case that the history of philosophy downplays the role of Northern African philosophy, and Arab traditions in general (Bernal 1991)[2]. Bernal also give detailed accounts on how Eurocentrism emerged in the academic institutions of Northern Germany on this period. Historians of Social science, and educational theory generally have problematised this phenomenon insufficiently (Nordkvelle 1990).

A general estimate is that scientific literature read by students and scholars in the Third World today is up to 95% imported from the West. Other writers have noted that the body of educational theory generally has been generated by Westerners, and that attempts to redesign a non-western theory has very little chance to succeed (Ahmed 1985, after Saha 1995, p. 253, Dias 1988, p.19). One dimension is that Europeans generally have silenced the position of the Other in its portraits of the European Self. Humanists like Montaigne explicitly relied on early travel reports from the Americas when writing about cannibals and similar phantasms. Descartes, who admired Montaigne ( as did Francis Bacon), refers to the established knowledge about ”foreign” kingdoms and culture in order to present his own conclusions. Voltaire and numerous others contribute to a manifest Eurocentrism in philosophy and scientific thinking, as expressed in Hegel’s writings of the turn of the 18th century (Dussel 1993). The other side of silencing is the process of ridiculing the non-European Other, a process that accelerated in the 19th century, reaching it’s peak with the racism of social Darwinism, expressed by Galton, and later Pearson and many, many others[3].

The institutional form that schooling and education developed in Europe from the Medieval time toward modernity has become a global model, copied by most countries and promoted by the development agencies. The most essential piece of this model is probably the didactical theory, and particularly as it materialises in textbooks. The German historian of pedagogics, Theodor Ballauf, writes:

Die ”Didaktik” welche an diesem Punkt sich an die Oberfläche der Lehrbuchtradition erhebt, ist das Destillat des scholastischen und humanistisches Erbes, tradiert und modifiziert zugleich. Denn eines der bemerkenswertesten Dinge der Westlichen Welt ist, dass sie Lehrbücher hat und leideschaftlich an dem interessiert ist, was wir heute ”Bildung” nennen. Alle anderen Kulturen – die durchaus ihren besonderen und unterschiedlichen Beitrag zur Menscheit und Geschichte liefern – haben seit dem 16.Jahrhundert nach Westen geblickt, um ihre eigenen Techniken des Verbreitens und ”Aneignens” von Wissen zu verbessern” (Ballauff 1969, s.616).[4]

Educational theory is in this view primarily mirroring the European development in terms of norms and values, institutional and material arrangements, legal and confessional contexts. Educational theory emerged along with the rise of European Modernity and was gradually established as a base for teacher training and research at universities and colleges in Europe through the 18th and 19th century. Educational theory, as it is given in teacher training and universities all over the world today is to a large extent based on the traditions established more than 200 years back by middle-aged men, deeply rooted in an academic, Christian tradition.

”Didaktik” and method

The origin of the term ”didaktik” has been investigated by several historians in the field. Some of them point at Hugo St.Victor in the 12th century and his work ”Didascalicon” and subsequently to the Greek term ”didaskalia” (meaning teaching or instruction) as roots for the first half of the term. The second part of the term relates to the Greek concept of techne (Larsen 1976, s.71). Some count the Jesuits as an influential source for the development of a ”curriculum” as well as on Humanist reformers in the early 16th century. Juan Luis Vives had in 1519 given a strong attack on the traditional educational methods in a book with the title: "Adversus pseudodialecticos" (Sellberg 1979, p.51). Vives was one among many humanists who wanted to reform the educational methods, particularly aiming at Petrus Hispanicus' textbook: "Summula logicales", a book that totally dominated the teaching of logics at the time. The humanist movement produced many reformers of the educational system in the 16th century[5]. The need for abstract generalisable models for teaching, curriculum and learning emerged as the number of schools, gymnasiums and universities escalated. Hopmann counts three elements that constituted the early didactical theory: 1) the rhetoric that was redefined by the humanists and used in the Latin schools, 2) the chatecism that the religious reformers established in its mass religious education project, and 3) the methodical thinking that guided the development of science and university teaching (1997). The probably most famous proponent of the latter area was Pierre de la Ramée (or Petrus Ramus), Professor of Philosophy in Paris (1515-1572).

Ramée developed his ”method” in an intellectual climate defined by the controversies between the Italian Humanism and the Scholasticism of France. Like Réne Descartes, who was educated at the Jesuit-college of Le Fleche one generation later, they both found the teaching of philosophy at their respective colleges futile and boring. Ramée's strong commitment to ”method” was a result of decades of struggle against boring, repetitive, formalistic teaching of Aristotelian logic in the 16th century. Several biographies present Ramus as a rebellion against Aristotle, rather as against the contemporary methods of teaching and organising the established stock of knowledge[6]. The core of his philosophy was that logic was the finest instrument for acquiring new knowledge. Using logic to organise knowledge in classes and groups according to dialectical principles, was the hallmark of his ”method”. To convey his insights in teaching he developed sophisticated graphs, tables and indexes where topics were ordered logically according to its logical place in the respective system. Further he developed this into textbooks organised accordingly. Some of his textbooks were even introduced in primary schools. Ong ordinates Ramée as the father of modern textbooks, and even of ”logocentrism”. Textbooks were to be written in a cool and distanced manner, without ambiguities, with clarity and logic, consequent and complete. Every topic dealt with was dissected and reorganised according to its logical place. The ideal was to make a textbook self-instructing and self-sufficient. His textbooks about logic and rhetoric were distributed in large numbers to the northern Europe. These ideals were also demonstrated in his teaching. Ong describes his method as the ”end of dialogue” in teaching (1958)[7]. However, his followers introduced Ramist ideas strongly to many university institutions in Northern Europe in the following decades, causing a strong division between the Ramists and their antagonists. The Universities of Glasgow, Cambridge, Gøttingen and Harvard became exponents for Ramism[8]. The Swedish academic world was marked by the rivalry between Aristotelians and the Ramists, coming to its peak at the University of Uppsala in 1639 (Sellberg 1979), a battle the Ramists won.

Ramist method as a method for teaching.

Ramée's philosophy was built on his dialectical method. ”The natural dialectic” was interpreted as ”the use of reason”. The scholastic use of dialectics was rendered inadequate and needed an active component, an inspiration he got from the humanist movement. Some have seen in this part of Ramée’s theory a beginning of a development leading up to John Dewey (Ong 1974:194) Dialectical method demanded that philosophy came into use - usus. The only exercises university students took part in were normally the ”disputations”. Ramée’s natural dialectics was simply put a tool to develop the ”order found within things themselves” (ibid. p.195) in order to remember what was being taught. Remembering was synonymous to understanding. Teaching was a matter of dealing with phenomena from common experiences, analysing it and outline the logical structure in a way that made it comprehensible. In many instances Ramée was inspired from Galen, who refuted authorities based on dogmas, and suggested practical experiences as first hand sources of knowledge. Although Ramée did not suggest ”observation” in a Baconian sense, ”seeing” what was a common experience was fundamental for any remembering. Analysing a topic was similar to charting a mind map over it. When Ramée dealt with such observation, he organised ”the ”contents” of consciousness” (ibid.195). Ramée was therefore an exponent of an emerging critical movement that made empirical research possible in the following century.

After Ramus the term ”method” becomes high fashion in Northern Europe, and the quest for a new rationality typical of the modernity has a significant point of departure in this question. Historians of Ideas disagree about the advent of ”modernity”. Stephen Toulmin suggests that the beginning of the 17th century is vital to understand European modernity (1990). The wars, famine and diseases of the beginning of the century nurtured the desire and ability to bring Nature and living conditions under ”control”, to bring order and system and replace chaos and insecurity. Ramée became a victim of the Bartolomew’s night himself and suffered from political instability and prosecution. His period as refugee was, however, very productive and gave a boost to his influence in Rheinland, Switzerland and Holland. Johan Heinrich Alsted, who was a Ramist, and became the teacher of Comenius, searched for this control by embarking on a gigantic encyclopaedic project. Comenius developed this further in developing the ”pansophy” – his main devotion was to write the complete encyclopaedia of all things to Gods honour[9]. The encyclopaedia became the tool to encompass all possible knowledge into one single artefact. At the end of Renaissance the European arena had several leading intellectuals who all seemed to search for the total insights. Yates refers to the ars memoria as the collective quest (Yates 1969). Giordano Bruno was a leading figure. The desire for the lost knowledge was firing many attempts to develop memory as an art.

One of the complaints Ramée faced was on his attempt to let students of logic study other texts than the textbook itself. His convictions was that although Aristotle was the master theoretician, students could read logical writers, such as Cicero and Vergilius, and learn how logical thinking appeared in natural settings, and still learn logic effectively (Sellberg 1979, p.88). Ramée was convinced that by studying a text by Cicero the student would acquire rhetoric, grammatical and dialectical thinking; interdiciplinarity would simply speed up the learning process. He set up a programme for a new Masters study five years shorter than the usual. He could do this because his dialectic was so much better organised and easier to learn.

What eventually came to signify "Ramism" was his logic, his method and his idea of "libertas philosophandi". The true "Ramists" were striving to let reason, unaffected by authoritarian figures of any sort, develop the shortest, most useful and effective body of knowledge possible (Sellberg 1979:131). This was possible to attain by using his dialectical method. Ramus' interest in minimising school attendance, systematising the curriculum in order to learn effectively, his emphasis on the practical use of knowledge, and the usefulness of rehearsing, was not genuinely his ideas, they were shared by many. But he redirected this educational style towards a new encyclopaedia of knowledge favouring the quadrivia, which was new and inspiring to many educationists of his time.

The problem with the humanist tradition of method was that their aim was to present ideas clearly and simply to promote the understanding of the students. The traditionalists, however,:

"...repudiated the criterion of communicability or ease of teaching and emphasised instead the scientific, or science-producing, character of their method, which was not intended to make it easy for the pupil, or to improve the rhetorical persuasion of a teacher's presentation: it was aimed exclusively at producing "science" or knowledge, as opposed to rhetorical persuasion and probable opinion, theirs, in a phrase which was only beginning to gain currency during the late Renaissance, was the methodus scientificus (Gilbert 1960, p.222).

The conflict on the issue of method was, according to Gilbert (ibid.), just another episode of the old rivalry between philosophy and rhetoric. This conflict hampered the development of both, and postpones the development of an empirical method for the sciences longer than otherwise could have been. A method for research and a method for teaching were inseparable for the humanists and traditionalists alike. The term ”Didaktik” might have played a role in easing this confusion.

Ramism and its influences on educational theory

Ramée was in a position to reform the curriculum and teaching methods of his own college in Paris, Collège Royal (later to be Collège de France). In spite of the need of many of his contemporaries to combat the alleged "anti-aristotaelism" his teaching methods won substantial ground even among his adversaries. It became quite common to denounce his "anti-aristotleanism" and embrace his method. According to Sellberg this was possible because Ramus never really challenged the reigning philosophy of his time; his philosophy was a "philosophy of schooling", and often mixed with more ambitious learned systems.[10] The textbooks were often adopted along with what came to be known as "the Ramist method". The gymnasium of Dortmund proclaimed that the successor of the rector Fredrik Beurhusius, should follow this method (Coring 1933, cited from Sellberg 1979, p.121). This orientation met with the interest of the rising bourgeoisie to establish school that were relatively independent in relation to clergy and nobility. Many of the gymnasiums established at this time adopted Ramism in order to find middle ways in this struggle, and Westphalen was its most successful area.[11]

Walter Ong pronounces that Henrik Alsted was the prime mediator between Ramus and Comenius. His comment on how the followers of Ramée influenced the German scholars is the following:

In Germany, however, its diagrammatic approach to knowledge fires the imaginations of polyhistors and of codifiers of all the sciences, so that Ramist method moves into the uppermost branches of the curriculum which cannot be matched in any other country. Nowhere else is the Ramist influence felt on such a monumental scale as in the works of Johann Heinrich Alsted, whose compends of all knowledge mark the confident beginnings of modern encyclopedism, (…), and Jan Amos Komensky, who (…) received his education and apparently much of his inspiration for his educational reforms from his Ramist teacher Alsted in Germany” (Ong 1958, 298).