Faculty of Education - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemThe educational theory of G.H. Bantock in the context of British educational thought 1965-1975( 1990)The 1960s and early 1970s witnessed changes in many social values in Britain; the educational world was not immune to the turbulence of these years. The classifications of `traditionalist', `conservative', `progressive' and 'radical' were attributed indiscriminately to the wide spectrum of party affiliations. As a result, the characteristics of these `parties' became difficult to isolate amid the vague condemnatory generalisations and intense criticism of personalities which characterized the period. G.H. Bantock (b. 1914) was considered a prominent traditionalist of these times, and as such, attempted to swim against the tide of what he believed was an increasing, uncultured progressivism. This study attempts to present a summary of Bantock's principal concerns, and to offer a profile of the main thrusts of the arguments which he advanced in over eighty major publications. As a subsidiary theme, it considers the nomenclature of the period, particularly from the perspective of the traditionalist, and seeks to isolate the foundations of that philosophical stance. Part 1 is a summary of the main concerns which consumed Bantock's attention during his career. Part 2 considers the means by which Bantock believed the problems of contemporary education could be solved, and Part 3 presents the author's evaluation of the ideas outlined in the previous sections.
-
ItemAn evaluation of aspects of the proposition by Professor G.H. Bantock that "ultimately education both formal and informal is concerned with cultural transmission"( 1976)This thesis explores both the meaning and the application of. Bantock's assertion. Firstly, the notion of 'culture' is examined. I3antock identifies two common interpretations of the word: the anthropological and the Arnoldian 'pursuit of excellence.' He claims that his understanding is somewhere between the two. However, an analysis of his works shows that his thinking for education is far more identifiable with the Arnoldian idea of culture as what people should do, than it is with the anthropological notion that culture is what the people do. The meaning of I3antock's assertion about education's 'ultimate concern' is then examined with respect to his recommendations on curriculum. Bantock usefully distinguishes between 'cognitive' and 'affective' learning. Yet this distinction is not as sharp as one might expect: the criterion of the rational - or cognitive - as the arbiter limits his recommendations affecting curricula. If education is to be transmitted, this entails a discussion of how the transmission is to take place. �3sntack rejects 'discovery methods' as a mesas to transmit cultural values. The validity of his rejection is disputed both on the grounds of his failure to perceive the structure underlying discovery methods and the motivation of these methods. Transmission has to be undertaken by someone: thus, the role of school and not - school is examined, and the role of the teacher is explored. The former is affected by the whole area of the responsibility of the educator to his society; the latter is complicated by the fact, not explored by Bantock in any depth, that the teacher himself is necessarily involved in the wider community. lf cultural transmission is to be seen as the ultimate concern of education, then other claimants need to be described and assessed. The thesis examines the claims of self-realization, social improvement and social .usefulness, and proceeds to examine what claim cultural transmission knight have against other claims. The thesis examines the contribution which cultural transmission has over and against other claimants: its complementary nature, its sense of continuity with the past and for the future, and its dynamic spirit are explored. Finally, the thesis seeks to assess the contribution of G. H. Bantock to educational thinking. Negatively. there is a criticism of his failure to recognise the pluralistic nature of modern society, and his tendency to over-simplify the attitudes of those with whom he disagrees. But, positively, he does draw attention to the need for educational discourse to identify aims, his open-ness to a changing society, and his identification that the decisions affecting education are less and less in the hands of educators.