Mr Owen’s Speech at a Public Dinner at Which he Presided, Given to Joseph Lancaster at Glasgow in 1812a

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Gregory Claeys
Keyword(s):  
1937 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
Joseph J. McCadden
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (28) ◽  
pp. 45-57
Author(s):  
Carlos Manique Da Silva

A configuração de redes educativas internacionais destinadas a difundir o ensino mútuo constitui o ponto principal da minha análise. Para o efeito, sublinho a contribuição de uma personalidade que – tendo nascido em Portugal, mais precisamente na ilha da Madeira, onde primeiramente teve contato com o modelo de ensino proposto por Joseph Lancaster – realizou viagens a Lisboa, Londres, Baltimore e Rio de Janeiro. O propósito dessas viagens esteve frequentemente associado à aprendizagem / promoção do sistema de ensino lancasteriano. Do ponto de vista teórico, assumo aqui que na difusão e circulação do conhecimento pedagógico existe uma interface entre o mundial e o local (cf., por exemplo, CARUSO, 2004; CARVALHO & Ó, 2009; SCHRIEWER, 2001). Por outras palavras, não se afigura legítimo falar de replicação de modelos estandardizados de organização educacional mas sim de processos seletivos de incorporação nos diversos contextos – em função de novos espaços sociais e culturais e de outros atores. A par dessa recontextualização é seguramente importante termos presente que a validação (e, obviamente, a legitimação) de um determinado modelo educacional só acontece a quando da sua “exportação”; quando se torna, portanto, universal (ROLDÁN VERA, 2007). Por outro lado, parece-me igualmente útil reter a lição de Mary S. Morgan (2011), designadamente quando entende que o conhecimento “circulou bem” se: i) manteve uma certa integridade; ii) encontrou novos utilizadores e produziu novas narrativas (nesse sentido foi frutífero).


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 410-425
Author(s):  
Inge Dornan

This article examines the ways in which Nonconformist missionary societies worked hand in hand with the British and Foreign School Society (BFSS) to provide them with pedagogic training in the British System and BFSS teaching manuals and resources, as part of their evangelical mission of conversion in the British West Indies, Africa and India in the nineteenth century. The BFSS appealed to Nonconformist missionaries because it was based on unsectarian pedagogy, pioneered by the educationalist Joseph Lancaster. The article explores the various obstacles these missionaries faced, including the religious persecution they experienced in teaching an unsectarian system and the educational difficulties they experienced in persuading parents and local governments of the value of elementary education. It also draws attention to the ways in which they fought race and sex prejudice in the teaching of Africans, slaves and young girls. The current literature on missionary activities in the early nineteenth century pays scant attention to their role as educators: the article reveals the degree of their educational ambition and zeal and the lengths they went to in order to implement a progressive system of unsectarian elementary instruction in key parts of the British empire during the nineteenth century.


Author(s):  
David Komline

The chapter focuses on “monitorial education,” schooling built on a pyramid system in which one master teaches several students, who teach several more. Two British teachers, Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell, each developed his own version of this pedagogical strategy at the end of the eighteenth century. In Britain, the question of whose system to use became heated: nonconforming evangelicals supported Lancaster, a Quaker layman; strict Anglicans supported Bell, a Church of England cleric. America picked up on the Lancasterian brand of monitorial instruction, dismissing Bell as tainted by antirepublican ecclesiasticism. In doing so, reformers across the religious spectrum supported monitorial education as a way to instruct America’s youth in a broad Christianity that was not sectarian. Lancasterianism thus introduced educational leaders to the idea of regimented schooling and offered a concrete example of religious schooling anchored in a broad evangelical consensus but not tied to any distinct denomination.


1974 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-119
Author(s):  
Gordon E. Fouts

The monitorial school, developed in England in the late eighteenth century by Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell, was adopted in the early nineteenth-century in American schools. Educators hoped that this system, which was designed to extend the teacher's efforts by means of student assistant teachers, would provide training for children at minimal expense—up to three hundred pupils per teacher. The first three volumes of the American Journal of Education (1826–1828) were devoted almost entirely to discussions of the monitorial system and to schools that used it. Ezra Barrett's Sabbath School Psalmody was planned and published in 1828 to assist teachers in presenting music rudiments by means of this system. The most significant characteristic of the system was that the assistant teachers, or monitors, learned given lessons and then instructed other members of the class by means of prepared questions and answers. The monitors and their groups repeatedly recited the questions and answers until the information was assimilated. Henry Kemble Oliver, a teacher, church musician, and hymn-tune composer who taught in monitorial schools during the 1820s, related his observations of the monitorial system before the first annual meeting of the American Institute of Instruction in 1830. He first spoke well of the system, principally because a large number of pupils could be accommodated by a single teacher, saving time and money. However, Oliver also pointed out the superficiality of the instruction and other adverse effects that outweighed the advantages. The influence of monitorial schools declined in America during the first half of the nineteenth century with the development of public schools.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document