It's also quite noticeable that the Rev. Joyce does not credit Maria Edgeworth with authorship of Practical Education but rather her father alone. Either my research into the volume is incorrect, or there are some gender issues at play here.
I'll let you have a chance to read the text before I carry on.
PREFACE.—THE Author feels himself extremely happy in the opportunity which this publication affords him of acknowledging the obligations he is under to the authors of 'Practical Education,' for the pleasure and instruction which he has derived from that valuable work. To this he is solely indebted for the idea of writing on the subject of Natural Philosophy for the use of children. How far his plan corresponds with that suggested by Mr. Edgeworth, in his chapter on Mechanics, must be left with a candid public to decide.
The Author conceives, at least, he shall be justified in asserting, that no introducion to natural and experimental philosophy has been attempted in a method so familiar and easy as that which he now offers to the public :-none which appears to him so properly adapted to the capacities of young people of ten or eleven years of age, a period of life which, from the Author's own experience, he is confident is by no means too early to induce in children habits of scientific reasoning. In this opinion he is sanctioned by the authority of Mr. Edgeworth. "Parents," says he "are anxious that children should be conversant with mechanics, and with what are called the mechanical powers. Certainly no species of knowledge is better suited to the taste and capacity of youth, and yet it seldom forms a part of early instruction. Everybody talks of the lever, the wedge, and the pulley, but most people perceive that the notions which they have of their respective uses is unsatisfactory and indistinct, and many endeavour, at a late period of life, to acquire a scientific and exact knowledge of the effects that are produced by implements which are in everybody's hands, or that are absolutely necessary in the daily occupations of mankind."
The Author trusts that the whole work will be found a complete compendium of natural and experimental philosophy, not only adapted to the understandings of young people, but well calculated to convey that kind of familiar instruction which is absolutely necessary before a person can attend public lectures in these branches of science with advantage. "If," says Mr. Edgeworth, speaking on this subject, "the lecturer does not communicate much of that knowledge which he endeavours to explain, it is not to be attributed either to his want of skill, or to the insufficiency of his apparatus, but to the novelty of the terms which he is obliged to use. Ignorance of the language in which any science is taught, is an insuperable bar to its being suddenly acquired; besides a precise knowledge of the meaning of terms, we must have an instantaneous idea excited in our minds whenever they are repeated; and, as this can be acquired only by practice, it is impossible that philosophical lectures can be of much service to those who are not familiarly acquainted with the technical language in which they are delivered." *
It is presumed that an attentive perusal of these Dialogues, in which the principal and most common terms of science are carefully explained and illustrated, by a variety of familiar examples, will be the means of obviating this objection, with respect to persons who may be desirous of attending those public philosophical lectures, to which the inhabitants of the metropolis have almost constant access.
Mr Edgeworth's chapter on Mechanics should be recommended to the attention of the reader, but the author feels unwilling to refer to part of a work, the whole of which deserves the careful perusal of all persons engaged in the education of youth.
It reads like the blurb on the back of a text book. Which is effectively what it is; a passage to be read by potential buyers and set out the contents of the book and the educational credentials of the author. This is the sort of man you'd want educating your children but a book by him is the next best thing seeing as you don't have that sort of money. It may as well read "If you buy this you will be doing the best for your children", which appears to be where a lot of marketing directed at parents has gone in these modern times.
I may have been hasty in judging the presence of sexism in the crediting of the Edgeworths. It is possible that the chapter on mechanics which Joyce is particularly keen on was written purely by Mr. Edgeworth. I do think it's very likely that references to a respected gentleman author were seen to be a better advertisement for the book. On top of that, the author himself claims this book to be better at its purpose than Practical Education and any other publication; a bold claim! Again, I think this is salesmanship, although I doubt that Rev. Joyce would have published until the work was of the best possible quality.
I am interested in the attitude shown regarding public lectures. Specifically that the blame for failing to communicate ideas lies primarily with the audience for not knowing enough jargon. This is a perennial problem when attempting to communicate complicated ideas; should you adjust what you say to fit your audience, or adjust your audience to fit what you say?
In the real world, where most of us predominantly have one-to-one conversations, then it's definitely the former; unless you're a total nerd with limited social skills.
However, in a one-to-many lecturing environment it becomes a little trickier. In an ideal classroom (or lecture theatre) all the students should be able to benefit from the teaching; which relies on their previous education and their retention of facts and ideas from that education. This is why we now have agreed curricula, setting a standard to which all students should be educated at any one stage before progressing to the next. This means that you should be able to teach what you aim to be teaching with minimal changes between groups of students. Of course, the world is not perfect, classrooms are rarely ideal and children learn different things at different rates; but it works for a fair proportion of students a fair proportion of the time.
In my opinion it gets weirder when we get to the equivalent of the "public lectures". Yes, there are some still run by universities and other institutions in the same mould as those mentioned in the preface. However, on an everyday basis, for the vast majority of us, this function has been met by television (and increasingly the internet). Over the years there has been a lot made of TV shows "dumbing-down" issues and I've been guilty of that; it's a rare show that I see about science that really approaches stuff at a high enough level. I am being unfair because I already know a lot of the basics and jargon due to my prior education and my reading in the intervening years. They are adjusting what they say to be understandable to someone in the mid-point of their target audience, this is what they should be doing. Yet I do really wish they'd make more for the next step on after that. Most drama series have a sense of progression where your enjoyment and understanding is affected by having see the previous shows; why doesn't this happen with science broadcasting? (I do appreciate I have completely ignored the Open University's programming, but that's all very late at night and doesn't count). It is getting better in some areas, although a lot of the shows tend to spend too much time giving us content that merely entertain and do not inform.
There is a science TV show that I thoroughly enjoy and that is The Royal Institution's annual Christmas Lectures. Even though they're aimed at students a third of my age and with a fraction of my book learning, I always get "pleasure and instruction" from them. [You can see this year's lectures on iPlayer for the next few days here and I'm sure people have naughtily uploaded them somewhere or other]
I should recognise that we are at a point where we have access to a great deal of good and well communicated science through the internet. Yet as with everything on the internet there is plenty of bad material available too and telling the difference can be a little tricky.
Click on the images for larger versions
No comments:
Post a Comment