Nineteenth-century method manuals with special reference to English
literature
Natalie Hole
The OED definition of a textbook is ‘A book used as a standard work for the
study of a particular subject . . . a manual of instruction in any science or branch of
study’ (1779). R. J. W. Selleck in The New Education (1968) adopted the view of
the last part of this definition, condemning the method manuals as almost entirely
utilitarian, enshrining and perpetuating the inflexible attitude towards elementary
education 1862-1890, which he saw as essentially ‘instrumentary’ and opposed to
progressive ideas. He considered the manuals kept close to Code requirements:
preferring to devote their time to showing how this educational Bible could best be
translated into practice (Selleck, 1968, p. 52). On the other hand, J. W. Adamson
(1857–1947) in English Education (1930) looking back over a career as elementary
school teacher and Master of Method, as well as Professor from 1903, called them
‘the standard manuals of method and educational ideas which formed the
professional reading of elementary school teachers’ (Adamson, p. 136),
i.e. examples of ‘a standard work for the study of a particular subject’.
Reference to the nature and declared purpose of the manuals shows support
for both sides of this argument, and provides evidence that the majority fell
between the two extremes, moving over time towards Adamson’s broader
assessment. Those cited are examples of books used to inform, teach and guide
trainee teachers, and to improve classroom practice in those already qualified. The
majority were published c.1830–1910 (see Bibliography of Method Manuals
below).
1
Purpose of the manuals
This was frequently developed in a Preface, but can be seen as much more
complex when the contents are analysed. The books were primarily practical works
on pedagogy for the large body of teachers apprenticed and already teaching who
would have no opportunity of college training. They were, however, widely used in
training colleges. Especially in the early years of the Code, training courses were
often very short and limited (perhaps three months in a ‘model’ school) and the
manuals provided a pattern of instruction for students and teachers to learn and
follow.
The figures given in Birchenough’s History of Elementary Education (1938)
indicate the extent of the problem concerning inadequately trained teachers (see
Table 1). The manual writers sought to improve the quality of teaching in the
2
schools through expert advice. This was almost always orientated to the Revised
Code and its later modifications. Criticism of the Code was not absent, but the
facts of a prescribed curriculum and the system of payment by results (as in 2003)
could not be ignored, even if they did not govern all suggestions.
The manuals therefore contained practical advice for achieving examination
success for pupils and, after the setting up of the Pupil Teacher system in 1846 and
Queen’s Scholarship awards, for teachers also. The needs of consumers were not
uniform, and became more demanding as provision and expectations expanded, so
the manuals developed to give more than advice on teaching basic skills. In
addition the Regulations were complex, and even managers needed help in
interpreting them (e.g. HMI Blakiston (1879) for ‘teachers and managers in all
kinds of schools’: Currie (1878); A Key (1882); Collins (1884)). Another element
was concern with moral education and character training – not only in
denominational schools – usually clearly stated and applied in particular subjects,
sometimes revealing a ‘hidden curriculum’, especially noticeable in English and
History.
From the beginning many manuals covered not merely teaching basic skills,
but also organization and discipline, management and principles of education on a
broader basis. Gill, one of the first to support more than instrumentary education,
stated in 1876 that mere instruction was ‘dangerous to society’ (Gill, 1876, p. 165).
Chronological study shows how the content and approach of the manuals
developed.
Manual writers
Most of these were educationists of knowledge and experience, involved in some
way in teacher training, and often of academic and public status; for example:
3
Dunn (1837) Secretary, 1830–1856, British & Foreign School Society.
Stow (1841) Initiator of infant schools, influential teacher trainer.
Richards (1854) Headmaster, Westminster Training School.
Gladman (1877, 1885) Head of Practising School, Normal Master,
Borough Road Training College,
Fitch (1881, 1900) Borough Road trained, later Principal, Borough
Road, Chief HMI Training Colleges.
Collins (1884) Method Lecturer, Borough Road.
Findlay (1899) Professor of Education, 1903–1925, Manchester
University.
Welton (1906) Professor of Education, 1904–1916, Leeds University.
Adamson (1907) First Professor of Education, King’s College,
London.
Outstandingly influential was John Gill (1857, 1863, 1876 etc.). Trained under
Stow, Method Master, later Principal, Cheltenham Training College. His manuals
were the immediate subject of Adamson’s comment quoted above.
Such men and their work formed a link between the government, the training
institutions and the schools, giving advice concerning the implementation of Code
directives. They also expounded ‘new’ educational thinking and philosophy,
promulgating their own views, as well as reflecting current attitudes. They were
therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, innovatory within the limits of the system
and their purpose.
Contents of manuals
4
These varied in extent, emphasis and comprehensiveness, but there were certain
constants: the basic requirements of the Code, acceptance of the current
organization of elementary schooling, and an underlying aim of moral education.
Added to this, from the middle of the century onwards, most of the manuals
presented a more liberal approach than mere instrumentary skills. For instance
Richards in 1854 stated:
It is now almost universally acknowledged that something more is required
of him (the teacher) than to give instruction in the mere mechanical parts of
reading, writing and arithmetic . . . the duty of the teacher (is) not so much
to supply his pupils with a certain amount of information … as to educate
them in a higher sense – viz. to develop their mental powers and to excite in
them a desire for future intellectual culture. (Richards, p. 31)
Currie (1861) and Robinson (1863) both presented ideas for elementary education
broader than the Code, as did Park (1879) in suggesting a wide range of literature
reading; also the writer of the Advanced Manual (1880), who stated categorically
that a teacher who had enabled his pupils to do well in the higher Standards of the
Code examination had accomplished ‘only half his duty in the matter’ (Advanced
Manual, pp. 6–7). The books illustrate these points, and also the fact that progress
was uneven. While some writers sought to introduce new thinking, even a fresh
approach to elementary/ primary teaching, others did still keep to the requirements
of the Code as Selleck claimed – but of course the Code itself was broadening.
The books were ‘standard works’ for the study of elementary school
teaching, implementing the Code, but they were also ‘manuals of instruction’,
often across a very wide field, for teachers. The wording of titles often suggests
5
content and purpose: ‘manual’, ‘management’, ‘method’, ‘instruction’ and later
‘principles’.
Development over time
This was in response to various influences. Changes in the Code resulted from
social and economic requirements, especially the need for, and alterations in, the
attitude to the education of the masses.
Early training in ‘systems’ of learning (drill, monitorial) largely provided
instrumentary education in practical basic skills. Later methods and materials
sought to educate for society (social control, political acceptability) for work
(industrial development, need for a skilled labour force) and for life as a whole,
including leisure. In spite of ongoing change, conservative ideas persisted in even
the later manuals – so far Selleck was correct; it is possible to find what one looks
for!
The ‘battle’ for education, and over its nature between various shades of
political and educational thought, was reflected in the manuals. They were
intended to educate and train the teacher, also to include practice examination
questions, sometimes with model answers. Gill, Park, Cox and Macdonald (1896)
were all in line with changing Code and examination requirements. Later books
tended to give greater attention and/or space to educational principles based on
philosophy and ultimately psychology, more of Adamson’s ‘ideas’ not just ‘drill
for skill’. They included justification for non-utilitarian subjects, attempts to
understand the learning process, and a real endeavour to apply the principles of
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Herbart and even Dewey.1 Hitherto references to
their methodology had been mostly at second and third hand.
6
The content and aims of the manuals can to some extent be analysed to
indicate the shift in emphasis, and also the perpetuation of fixed ideas and
methods. Table 2 has been drawn up to give a basis for deductions. It is unbalanced
because the manuals have been searched primarily for information concerning one
subject, but if this is regarded as an example, some general conclusions can be
drawn.
Overall the chief evidence of change, most of which occurred in the last twentyfive years covered, is shown in the entries to the right of the shaded column (9).
Clearly there are certain constants, mainly related to reading and writing (with
arithmetic, the three basic essentials) seen in columns 1, 2, 4 and 7, and Selleck
maintained that the Code examination statistics proved that the changes had little
effect on the curriculum as a whole because of the grant structure (Selleck, 1968,
pp. 36–39). It certainly appears that until 1890, once a subject was on the
curriculum it was used mainly to serve the Code and earn examination grants
(columns 9 and 11).
The early books were narrow and practical, intended for imparting
knowledge or drilling in Code skills e.g. Unwin in 1862, ‘practical and closely
related to the future prospects of the pupils’ (Unwin, p. 56), similarly Menet in
1867, and even Gill in practice though not in theory.
After 1875 there was a gradual expansion of the curriculum, and also the
approach to the presentation and even the testing of some subjects. Noteworthy is a
Code instruction concerning Recitation: ‘Meaning and allusions to be known, and
if well known to atone for deficiencies of memory’ (Report of the Committee of
Council on Education, 1874–75. pp. cxxxix, cxlix). So a ‘trickle’ of entries appears
in columns 16, 17 and 18.
7
Key:
Y
( )
+
X
Imp
Included in manual
Definition given
Not on curriculum by name, material
often included
Point stressed
Method condemned
Implied, not actually stated
?
y
C
Possible, not clearly stated
Basic essentials as background
To serve New Code
E
M
Help for teacher’s examination
Suggested literature teaching
method
Explaining the ‘system’
S
8
Some manuals, for example, Lean’s Familiar Notes (1874) and Park’s A
Manual of Method (1879), were always progressive in their approach, while others
remained limited. HMI Blakiston’s ‘anthology’ contained only seven poems as
choice for seven years’ study. Gladman’s School Work (1885) was described by
Selleck as ‘severely practical. . . . School Method (1877) with the justification
9
written in’ (Selleck, 1972, p. 91), and Evans’s School Management (published
1891 and up to 1917) emphasized the importance of reading, because it ‘influences
the after-life and after-position of pupils very greatly’ (Evans, p. 11).
Items on such a table can be misleading; Park’s Principles and Practice of
1886 was identical with his Manual of Method of 1879; the editors of the National
Schoolmaster’s Handbook on the Teaching and Management of Elementary
Schools (1896) referred to an 1867 demand for a ‘liberal education’, but did not
describe this as other educationists envisaged it.
Judging by the contents it was only in the 1890s (coinciding with the
development of the Day Training Colleges) that there was measurable progress
with regard to general education being the child’s natural right, and attempts made
to include the theories of educational philosophy and psychology in teacher
training, and apply them to classroom practice. Some outstanding examples are:
Findlay (1899), who presented a Herbartian approach, using Rein’s version of
Ziller’s interpretation (Findlay, pp. 67, 155–160), and Henderson (1904), who
sought to apply Herbart’s theory of ‘connectedness’, but needed to compromise
with practical necessity under persisting Code constraints.
Welton was broader than all in his survey of educational ideas and their
significance. He attempted to understand a child’s learning processes, ‘knowledge
is power only when it is attained by personal effort’ (Welton, 1906, p. 19). Teacher
skill had been a concern for many years (column 22); he suggested a new idea –
specialist teachers (Welton, 1906, p. 41). Yet throughout his writing, as in many
other manuals, there is a dichotomy between theory and practice: Findlay used
Robinson Crusoe to provide suitable activities for training artisans (Findlay, p.
413); Welton’s methods for teaching literature were those put forward in the
10
Advanced Manual of 1880 for training for Code examinations. But he did
recommend theatre visits (Welton, 1906, p. 161).
There is significance in the blanks in earlier years in columns 16 and 19
(pleasure and liberal education) and in the later appearance of X in columns 5 and
11, denoting evaluation and criticism of accepted methods (Dexter and Garlick, pp.
176–177).2
Influence and endurance of the manuals
This is not easy to assess, but some evidence is on record. Prefaces by some writers
(e.g. Gill 1882) make positive claims of the market served and a worldwide
distribution in colleges and training centres, also support from HMI. The numbers
of editions and reprints (columns 23 and 24) give some evidence of longevity.
Archives such as those of Borough Road (now the West London Institute of
Higher Education) refer to recommendations and sales of certain manuals. The
Catalogue of the Book Depository in the Report of the British and Foreign Schools
Society (1876) includes Dunn’s manual at a reduced price, Currie’s Principles,
Gill’s School Management and another title, Notes of Lessons. Invoices for 1895
record purchases of Fitch’s ‘Teaching’ (presumably Lectures on Teaching (1881)),
also his Manual of the Science and Art of Teaching (1865), Landon’s School
Management (1883), another book by Cowham, New School Method, and
Gladman’s School Work (1885).3 The last was ordered by the dozen, often for
overseas students. There are extant copies, some interleaved for the students’ own
notes, in the British Library and other archives. Adamson’s evidence as to their
value should also be considered. Aldrich and Gordon describe him as ‘the most
distinguished historian of education of his day’ (Aldrich and Gordon, p. 5).
11
The manuals were, in theory, superseded by the HMSO publication
Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers (1905), which the government hoped would
have a wide distribution. Some LEAs responded to this, but the general principles
it contained were often vague, and there was more practical help for teachers in the
best of the manuals, especially the later ones. On the other hand they might lead to
stereotyped teaching. Like all textbooks they could be good servants but bad
masters.
In the current climate some attention must be paid to any indication of
gender issues in the manuals. There are few direct distinctions made between
teaching methods for boys and girls, but where syllabuses are given, or specific
material mentioned, the influence of the Code differentiation is discernible. The
reiterated ‘and needlework for girls’, with later a compulsory first choice of
domestic economy as an ‘optional’ subject, reduced the time girls could spend on
what today is considered general education, including English Literature or
Recitation, and material suggested for the subject was often gender-oriented. Less
time was given to science, and a lower standard in arithmetic was often accepted.
It is interesting that although there were several outstanding Mistresses of
Method, and many able ones in Training Colleges and Pupil Teachers’ Centres, J.
B. Thomas wrote in 1997, after much research, ‘no woman wrote a manual of
general method’ (Thomas, p. 103. See also History of Education Society Bulletin,
nos. 29 and 30). Wendy Robinson found one written by E. House of Derby,4 but
energetic Catherine Dodd, a Herbartian at Manchester with Findlay, only appears
as the author of more general articles (Robertson, pp. 32–41).
12
Conclusion
I hope the points made above have justified the claim that Method Manuals can be
defined as ‘textbooks for teachers’, that is for monitors aged thirteen years and
above, up to those fully trained undertaking organizational responsibility in the
schools. The earliest books describing ‘systems’ were simple manuals of
instruction in some method of mass education. The fuller ones from 1894 onwards
included principles of the study of the rationale of primary education. These were
certainly more than narrow ‘manuals of instruction’, including the development of
the theory behind educational practice from Locke and Rousseau onwards. They
also revealed how ‘cultural subjects’, or ‘the Humanities’ such as English
Literature and history could be taught by an enthusiastic and skilful teacher under
cover, as it were, of Code examination requirements.
The books are a rich field for research not only concerning the development
of the curriculum, with its increasing attention to science, mathematics and the
Humanities, but also reveal attitudes to teacher training, the growth of ideas on
pedagogy and their practical implementation.
Notes
1. Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841). German empiricist philosopher,
psychologist and educational theorist; acquainted with Pestalozzi, for whose
empirical practice he sought to give a technical and theoretical foundation. See also
Welton (1906), pp. 42–43 and De Garmo, C. (1895) Herbart and the Herbartians.
2. This is a scathing denunciation of ruining literature by using extracts for
grammar exercises. See also Raymont, pp. 132–133.
13
3. These entries are listed from advertisments and invoices. Some are not clearly
identifiable and titles may have been altered or shortened. The National Society
does not have copies or records of nineteenth-century method manuals: many
archives in the City were destroyed in the Blitz, during the Second World War.
4. E. D. House’s book, Forms of Criticism for Lessons and Pedagogic Exercises,
1899. London and Derby: Bemrose & Sons, was drawn to my attention by Wendy
Robinson. Also of historical interest is the earliest manual traced: Talbot, James
(1707) The Christian Schoolmaster. London: SPCK.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF METHOD MANUALS USED
Abbott & Seeley, J. A. (1871). English for English People. London: Seeley,
Jackson & Halliday.
Adams, J. (1905). Primer on Teaching. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Adamson, J. W. (1907). The Practice of Instruction. A Manual of Method, General
and Special. London: National Society’s Depository.
An Advanced Manual of Teaching for teachers of elementary and higher
Schools (1880). London: National Society’s Depository.
14
Blakiston, J. R. (1879) The Teacher, Hints on School Management. London:
Macmillan & Co.
British and Foreign School Society (1831). Manual of the System of Primary
Instruction. London: Longman & Co., J. Nisbet, Darton and Harvey. New edn.
1847, 3rd edn. 1854.
British and Foreign School Society (1854), A Handbook to the Borough
Road Schools. London: Sunday School Union.
Collar, G. and Crook, C. W. (1900). School Management and Methods of
Instruction with Special Reference to Elementary Schools. London: Macmillan.
Collins, G. (1884). Notes on School Management. London: Moffatt &
Paige.
Cowham, J. (1890). Cowham’s Teachers’ and Pupil Teachers’ Course.
London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co.
Cox, T. A. and Macdonald, R. F. (1896). The Suggestive Handbook of
Practical School Method. London: Blackie & Son.
Currie, J. (1861). The Principles and Practice of Common-School Education.
(1878 New edn.). London and Edinburgh: Laurie’s Kensington Series.
Dexter, F. G. and Garlick, A. H. (1905). A Primer of School Method.
15
London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Dunn, Henry (1837), Popular Education or The Normal School Manual.
London: Sunday School Union.
Dunn, Henry (1869). Teaching: Its Pleasures, its Trials and its
Responsibilities. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.
Evans, Thomas (1891). Pupil Teacher’s School Management. Redditch:
T. Evans.
Findlay, J. J. (1899, 1902). Principles of Class Teaching. London:
Macmillan.
Fitch, Sir. J. G. (1881). Lectures on Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Fitch, Sir. J. G. (1900). Educational Aims and Method: Lectures and
Addresses. Cambridge: CUP.
Garlick, A. H. (1896). A New Manual of Method. London: Longmans,
Green & Co.
Gill, J. (1857). Introductory Textbook to School Management. 2nd edn.
London: Longmans, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts.
Gill, J. (1863 9th edn). Introductory Text-Book to School Education,
16
Method and School Management. London: Longmans, Green, Reader
& Dyer. New edn 1870; new edn 1882.
Gill, J. (1876). Systems of Education. London: Longmans, Green,
Reader & Dyer.
Gladman, F. J. (1877). School Method. London: Jarrold & Sons.
Gladman, F. J. (1885). School Work. London: Jarrold & Sons. Rev. edn
1898.
Green, J. A. and Birchenough, C. (1911). A Primer of Teaching Practice.
London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Gunn, J. (1895). Class Teaching and Management. London and Edinburgh:
T. Nelson & Sons.
Hackwood, F. W. (1896). The Practical Method of Class Management.
London: George Philip & Son.
Handbook on the Teaching and Management of Elementary Schools (1872).
By the Editor of the National Schoolmaster. Manchester. John Heywood,
Deansgate; London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.
Harding, F. E. (1872). Practical Handbook of School-Management and Teaching.
London and Edinburgh: Thomas Laurie.
17
Henderson, A. (1904). Some Notes on Teaching. Nottingham: Arthur Shimeld.
Jarrold, J. (1882–1898). Jarrolds Pupil Teachers’ Series, including,
Singleton, J. E., (1882), Notes of Lessons, English Grammar. London: Jarrold &
Sons.
Joyce, P. W. (1887). A Handbook of School Management and Methods of
Teaching. Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.
A Key to the New Code (1882). (No.8 in Tracts on Education 1881-1882). London:
National Society’s Depository.
Landon, J. (1883). School Management. London: Kegan Paul, Trench &
Co.
Landon, J. (1894, 3rd edn). The Principles and Practice of Teaching and Class
Management. London: Alfred M. Holden.
Lean, W. S. (1874). Familiar Notes on Modes of Teaching. English. London:
Longmans, Green & Co.
Menet, J. (1867). Practical Hints on Teaching. London: Bell & Daldy. (3rd
Rev. edn 1872).
Park, A. B. R. (1879). A Manual of Method for Pupil Teachers and Assistant
18
Masters. London: Blackie & Son.
Park, A. B. R (1886). The Principles and Practice of Teaching. London:
Blackie & Son.
Raymont, T. (1904). The Principles of Education. London: Longmans,
Green & Co.
Richards, W. F. (1854). Manual of Method for the use of Teachers in
Elementary Schools. London: National Society’s Depository.
Robinson, R. (1863). Teacher’s Manual of Method and Organization.
London: Longman, Green & Co. (2nd edn 1867, 3rd edn 1869)
Ross, W. (1858). (‘New Edition’), The Teacher’s Manual of Method.
London: Longmans, Brown & Co.
Salmon, D. (1898). The Art of Teaching. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Stow, D. (1841). The Training System. Glasgow: Blackie & Co.
Tate, T. (1860). The Philosophy of Education or the Principles and Practice
of Teaching. London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts.
(1879). A Teacher’s Manual of the Science and Art of Teaching. (1879).
London: National Society’s Depository.
19
The Teacher’s Manual of the Science and Art of Teaching (1865). [by]
Teacher.
Unwin, W. (1862). The Primary School. London: Longman, Green,
Longman & Roberts.
Welton, J. (1899). The Logical Bases of Education. London: Macmillan &
Co.
Welton, J. (1906). Principles and Methods of Teaching. London: University
Tutorial Press.
References
Adamson, J.W. (1930). English Education 1789–1902. Cambridge.
Aldrich, R. & Gordon, P. (1989). Dictionary of British Educationists.
London.
Birchenough, C. (1938). History of Elementary Education in England and
Wales. From 1800 to the present day. London.
Blakiston, J. R. (1884–5). Selected Poetry for Repetition from Mr Blakiston’s
List of Selections for the Schools in his District. London.
20
Committee of Council (1875). Report of the Committee of Council on
Education. 1874–75. London.
De Garmo, C. (1895). Herbart and the Herbartians. London.
Purvis, J. (1984). ‘The Experience of Schooling for Working-Class Boys and
Girls in Nineteenth-century England’. In Goodson, Ivor F. & Ball,
Stephen (eds.) (1984) Defining the Curriculum. London, 89–111.
Robertson, Alex (1991). ‘Catherine I. Dodd and Innovation in Teacher
Training 1892-1905’. History of Education Society Bulletin 47, 32–41.
Selleck, R. J. W. (1968). The New Education. The English Background 1870–
1914. London.
Selleck, R. J. W. (1972). ‘F .J. Gladman – Trainer of Teachers’. In Turney, C.
(ed.) (1972) Pioneers of Australian Education. Vol. 2, Sydney.
Thomas, J. B. (1997). ‘Mistresses of Method: women academics in the day
training colleges 1890–1914’. Journal of Education Administration and History.
July 1997, 103.
21