Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics (1983) 7,299-305

HENRY EDWARD ARMSTRONG AND DOMESTIC SCIENCE

ROBERT A. BAY LISS Aberdeen

Robert Gordon’s Institute of Technology,

Henry Edward Armstrong (1848-1937) has an assured place in the history o f education. His concern for improved methods of science teaching and learning included an interest in domestic science. His ideas are still relevant to contemporary home economics.

bhen the new biological laboratory was opened in Abbey Road School, Reading on 16 May 1934, the speaker was the retired and elderly Henry Armstrong, F.R.S.’ His talk was characteristically controversial and lively. He commented on a complex world where a new ‘Church of scientific method’ was emerging, and speculated on how the school could ‘educate women to face the world of thoughtless vulgarity and callous commercialism’. He quoted from one of his letters to The Times about ‘silken stockings’, and recommended these, with milk and vegetables, as worthy of scientific study in school. His concluding words may have struck a sympathetic note, when he condemned school science as ‘worthless for all practical purposes’ and the certificate examination as a ‘blight upon our civilisation’.

Armstrong was born on 6 May 1848, educated briefly at The Royal College of Chemistry, and after a period working on water analysis with Edward Frankland, went to the Leipzig laboratory of Hermann Kolbe. There he was one of ‘a happy band . . . all bent on proving we could walk alone’.’ He was awarded a Ph.D., lectured in London and in 1884 began a long association with the City and Guilds of London Institute. In 191 1 he retired from the chair of chemistry at the Central Technical C ~ l l e g e . ~ Armstrong’s chemical researches included important work on naphthalene, and his sixty years of published papers included periods when ‘co- workers received daily letters or telegram^'.^

It was, however, his contribution to the development of new ideas in science education that is most important, and has led to his inclusion in a series of biographies of ‘founding fathers of science education’.’ Armstrong described important influences in his own education, where he disliked didactic methods

Correspondence: Robert A. Bayliss. Robert Gordon’s Institute of Technology, 352 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 2TQ.

0309-3891/83/1200-0299 $02.00 0 1983 Blackwell Scientific Publications 299

H. E. Armstrong and domestic science

and textbooks and welcomed his eventual ‘emancipation . . . into the heuristic atmosphere of a German university’.6

He was also impressed with the techniques used by advocates in court, where he appeared as a witness, and describedlater the ‘methodical logical use of kn~wledge’ .~

Armstrong lectured at the 1884 International Conference on Education where John Meiklejohn explained the origins of the word ‘heurism’. W. H. Brock in his lucid account of Armstrong’s life and work, has traced the word’s formidable educational pedigree, involving Locke, Rousseau, Erasmus Darwin and others. He explained Armstrong’s use of the word.’

First. what a child or student finds out for himself he remembers. Secondly. motivation and interest: if a student is interested and realises that something is worth learning he will do it more efficiently. Thirdly, but less clearly, the learning situation must be graded - children will learn certain things better a t different ages. Fourthly, that if children keep a careful record of their findings, this will help to correlate their mental and verbal understanding . , . the whole emphasis was on doing in order to understand.

Armstrong’s own definition was of ‘methods which involve placing students as far as possible in the attitude of the discoverer - methods which involve finding out instead of merely being told about things’.’

His educational crusade, for no other word adequately conveys the forceful advocacy over many decades, was carried out partly in various British Association Committees, where he worked with Arthur Smithells, well known for his enthusiastic support for the emerging subject of domestic science and women’s higher education.” Heuristic ideas weie adopted in many schools, and the experiments with Armstrong’s own children illustrated the learning of concepts such as ‘average, density and percentage’.”

Although Armstrong made progress, there were difficulties. The word ‘discovery’ was used in various ways. As F. W . Westaway put it in Science Teaching, if the word search had been used instead of discovery ‘the philistines would have been disarmed’.I2 Examination systems caused problems, and the later psychological theories about transfer of learning were also ~ignificant.’~ Armstrong tended to ‘overstress and o~erse l l ’ ’~ his ideas, but he is regarded as reshaping science teaching in Britain at the turn of the twentieth ~ e n t u r y . ’ ~

C. E. Browne, one of Armstrong’s most important associates, described his mentor as ‘an original thinker on education . . . as a constructive reformer he is pre- eminent’. l6

When Arthur Smithells reviewed Armstrong’s collection of papers. The Teaching of Scientific Method, in 1904, he made the pertinent, suggestion that the author should have ‘distilled’ his ideas into a more coherent shape:

Professor Armstrong renounces the claim, often imputed to him, of having discovered a new method of teaching. What he has done has been to formulate a scheme of teaching in accordance with principles as old as c i~ i l i sa t ion . ’~

Smithells added the significant comment that ‘there is surely much that may be

3 00

R. A. Bayliss

told . . . in doing this there is no need to throw the pupil into a state of passive acceptance’. It may be noted that Armstrong could be a formidable scientific controversialist, as the exchange of letters with Smithells in 1894 makes clear.’’ C. L. Bryant echoed Smithells’ remark when he wrote much later that ‘we did not see why every child should walk round Ireland before he could believe it was an island’. l9

The heurisni controversy has continued throughout the century. The 1918 report on Natural Science in Education2’ agreed that the ‘spirit of inquiry’ should be encouraged but did not accept heurism as the main educational method: Brock described this part of the Report as a ‘caricature of Armstrong’s intentions’.21 Another writer of great interest is John Bradley who met Armstrong in the 1930’s and used the phrase ‘heuristic thrust’ in describing one important method in science teaching in schools.22 Bradley’s contributions to the literature of science education included one in the controversial Black Papers. 23 Another contributor, G. H. Bantock, writing on discovery methods, emphasized that ‘there is, in fact, no one way. Subject matter differs enormously in nature and demands quite different sorts of pedagogic devices for its efficient transmission’.24

Armstrong became interested in domestic science as part of the larger concern with science education. In 1896 a paper was published on ‘Domestic Science Teaching in Elementary school^'.^' He referred to the opinions expressed by T. H. Huxley as a candidate for London School Board election in 1870 when he wrote on ‘the elements of household work and of domestic economy’ and what would now be called social education.26

Armstrong’s view of progress since 1870 was not optimi~tic.’~

Just consider how ignorant we all are of almost everything concerning us in daily life. The cook in the kitchen has no eyes - her fire is scarcely ever proportioned to the work it has to do . . . she uses the same saucepan over a fire and over a gas-burner, never realising how important it is to have such vessels clean outsidc as well as inside . . . The domestic economy ~

or domestic science, as we desire to call it ~ is something wider than the conventional domestic economy recognised by County Councils and School Boards, which usually comprises mere elementary technical instruction on cookery. sewing and washing.

Armstrong described the subject as essential for boys and girls, which would ‘make home life happy and the labour of all workers efficient’. The main object of his advocated education in scientific method was to help to produce ‘careful, exact. observant and thoughtful’ people. In 1898 he described domestic science as ‘this all-important subject’.’’

In 1901 Armstrong spoke to a conference of science teachers,” and defined the word ‘scientific’ as the ‘power of using knowledge with nous and understanding’.

Training in domestic knowingness must conic before training in household management if the latter is to be effective. 1 use the expression household management advisedly in place of domestic economy. No one in this country does or can think of economy in connection with the word domestic ~ common experience shows the two conceptions to be altogether incompatible.

30 1

H. E. Armstrong and domestic science

He specified four areas of work to be attempted in school. In an enthusiastic advocacy of one of these, measurement, he hoped for a song, with words written by Kipling and the refrain ‘weigh weigh weigh’ which could be ‘hummed and danced to by girls during the science lessons and sung on state occasions in colleges and universities’.

Investigations on water would involve evaporation, condensation and concern for energy conservation.

Armstrong had firm views on textbooks; he would not allow them in his class- rooms.

Each child should write its own text-book and be taught to regard it as a holy possession. . . the motive for the experiment must come first, then the description of the work done, next the results: finally the moral.

Armstrong frequently used literary allusions and he used the Duchess in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland3’ as a useful example for schoolchildren to remember. The end of the talk was significant, when Armstrong advised the teachers to ‘watch most carefully the workings of the child’s unbiased mind . , . we shall all gain by making the children our friends and regarding ourselves as fellow learners’.

Armstrong had been a prominent advocate of the British Association’s Educational Science section, and he gave a lengthy presidential address31 at the 1902 Belfast meeting. Amongst other topics, he mentioned the official neglect of cooking in educational circles and called for more imagination in the kitchen ‘of all places the one in which the heuristic approach should flourish’.

A new educational journal SchooZ started in 1904 and Armstrong wrote an article for the third issue in March.32 In what was intended to be the first of a series, he explained his objection to the term ‘domestic economy’ as a linguistic muddle in view of the origins of the word economy. He advocated the use of ‘domestics’ for the subject in school, analogous to ‘civics’. His main theme was the ‘dibicle’ of the school board system, and the particular situation of domestic science was not explained.

He wrote several other articles for the short-lived School including a comment on an earlier article on the place of ‘motherhood’ in the school c u r r i ~ u l u m . ~ ~ The author wrote that ‘the idea that the turning of a house into a home is the only profession which may be followed without definite preparation needs pulling up by the roots’. Armstrong supported this view that the schools should provide education both for paid work and home-making. and agreed that inferior education for girls would not be a ~ c e p t a b l e . ~ ~

The question of girls’ education was controversial. A Cambridge University science lecturer, Ida Freund, argued eloquently in 191 1 for the ‘dangerous encroach- ments of domestic science’ to be resisted and advocated sound teaching of basic science. She accepted that a ‘knowledge of household work and household administration is of the utmost she also noted the ‘extensive applica-

302

R. A. Bayliss

tion of the heuristic method being limited by the comparative shortness of our individual lives’.

These issues are discussed by E. W. Jenkins in his book From Armstrong to Nu f f i e l ~ l , ~ ~ and other British Association contributions of Armstrong are described. One of these, published in the 1917 Report,37 formed one part of the Report of the Committee on Science in Secondary Schools. Armstrong referred to his earlier work in 1889 and 1890:

My desire has been to see a scheme of instruction gradually introduced into girls’ education which will make them scientific observers and thinkers in relation to home matters: if this position were gained, they would stand on an intellectual plane far higher than that they now occupy.

Suggested experiments covered a wide range, and included the lively suggestion: ‘what happens when gunpowder is fired - in what ways do charcoal or sulphur and nitre interact? Try to find out.’ The long paper concluded with a short section on ‘literary work’. He recommended the clear writing-up of experiments, disliked the ‘graceless hackneyed form of Experiment, Observation, Inference’ and wanted a clear distinction made between the experiment ‘to find out’ and the ‘mere demon- stration or verification of the truth of a statement’. He did not exclude the use of books, including some textbooks.38 Some British Association contributions were not published, but one significant example was the report of the sub-committee on Elementary Experimental Science at the 1908 meeting3’ The members included Smithells and Heller.

Domestic duties call for more initiative, more executive ability, more power of organisation and more common-sense than do the ordinary vocations that boys follow on leaving school. The woman in the home is continually confronted with new problems, the solution of which demands trained intelligence and a habit of thought.

Armstrong had wide interests and many targets to attack. Domestic science was part of broader concerns, and not always developed in his writings. Some of his ideas of women may seem unpalatable: his dislike of unmarried women teachers and co-educational schools may seem as archaic as the later comment on ‘silken stockings’. Events of two world wars have overtaken ideas arising out of a different tradition?’

Some biographical accounts have stressed Armstrong’s scientific ach~evements~~ and he was paid the considerable tribute by F. W. Keeble42 of having ‘all the spare parts of genius but not the long patience to put them together’.

Jenkins43 neatly emphasizes the link between Armstrong and what is generally known as Nuffield science. The new NujJield Home Economics: Teachers’ Guide to the Basic Coursea explained its ‘approach to learning in which the pupils are stimulated into making their own investigations’. An earlier Newsletter4’ had described the needs of home economics as including ‘an investigative, critical attitude of mind’ and ‘a practical approach to solving problems’. The processes not

3 03

H. E. Armstrong and domestic science

needed included ‘strangling assessment techniques which are costly and time consuming’.

These sentiments would seem to be in accord with Armstrong’s philosophy of education. His lively and pugnacious talks and articles are like a shower of shooting stars. They are intended to direct attention to possible solutions to problems and to experiments which have produced significant results. In his own words, he would have expected his ideas to be looked at by ‘man as a reasoning being’.&

1 . 2.

3. 4 .

5 .

6 .

7. 8. 9 .

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27.

References

Armstrong, H.E. (1934) Silken Stockings. Journal o fEdmat ion , 66, 386-~488. Brock, W.H. (Ed.) (1973)H. E. Armstrongand the TeachingofScience 1880-1930, p. 67. University Press, Cambridge. Ibid., Editor’s introduction, pp. 13-15. Armstrong, E.F. (1941) Henry Edward Armstrong. JournalofSociety of Chemical Industry,

Brock, W.H. (1977) In the Attitude of the Discoverer: Founding Fathers of Science Education 6. New Scientist, 75,678-679. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) The TeachingofScientificMethodand Other Papers on Education, pp. 235-299. Macmillan, London. Brock, W.H. (Ed.) (1973) op. cit., pp. 69-70. Ibid.,p. 21. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) The TeachingofScientificMethodand Other Papers on Education, p. 236. Macmillan, London. Bayliss, R.A. (1976) Flexner, Smithells and Home Economics. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 8 , 9-18. Brock, W.H. (1977) op. cit., p. 679. Westaway, F.W. (1929) Science-Teaching, pp. 20--41. Blackie, Glasgow. Brock, W.H. (1973) op. cit., pp. 43-54. Ibid. ,p.51. Ibid., p. 52. Rodd,E.H. (Ed.) (1966) Henry Edward Armstrong and Charles E. Browne, p. 24. Harrison, London. Browne used Armstrong’s methods for many years at Christ’s Hospital. Barnes Wallis, the distinguished aeronautical engineer, was a pupil there between 1900-1904. He wrote of Browne that ‘he did not teach science in the sense usually attached to the word: he used science to teach us to think, to reveal to us the powers we ourselves possessed’. Morpurgo, J.E. (1972) Barnes WaNis, p. 22. Longman, London. Smithells, A. (1904) Professor Armstrong’s Education Writings. Mature, London, 69, 289-290. Nature, London (1894) pp. 86--92,100--101,150, 172, 198. See also: Rodd, E.H. (1904) E. H. Armstrong. Journal of Chemical Society, pt. 2, 1418-1439. Brock, W.F. (1973) op. cit., p. 44. Natural Science in Education (1918) pp. 55-56. HMSO, London. Brock, W.F. (1973) op. cit., p. 47. Bradley, J. (1975) Where does Theory Begin? Education in Chemistry, 12, 8 -11. Bradley, J. (1970) Black Paper Three (Ed. by C. B. Cox and A. E. Dyson), pp. 87 ~ 90. Critical Quarterly Society, London. Bantock, G.H.,ibid., pp. 101-117. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) op. cit., pp. 208-~218. Bayliss, R.A. (1977) A Note onT. H. Huxley and the Society of Arts. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 1, 21-25. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) op. cit., pp. 209--211.

60,77-78.

3 04

R. A. Bayliss

Ibid., p. 245. Ibid., pp. 400-421. Armstrong advised the pupils to follow the example of Lewis Carroll’s Duchess who declared that ‘everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it’. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) op. cit. , pp. 35-96. Armstrong, H.E. (1904) Home Study: the placing of ‘Domestics’ on a Practical Scientific Basis. School, 1, 121-123. ‘Alcestis’ (1907) Motherhood and its Place in the Curriculum. School, 8,42-44. Armstrong, H.E. (1907) Science and ‘School’. School, 8,93- 96. Freund, I. (1911) Domestic Science - A Protest. The Englishwoman, 10, 147-163. Jenkins, E.W. (1979) From Armstrong to Nuffield. Murray, London. Armstrong, H.E. (1918) Suggestions for a Course of Practical Food Studies. Report of British Association (1917), pp. 188-202, London. Few could disagree with one of his comments that ‘books are a curse when used to train parrots’. Richmond, P.E. and Quraish, A.R. (1964) Armstrong’s Heuristic Method in 1964. School Science Review, 45,511-520. SubCommittee on Elementary Experimental Science (1909). Report of British Association Dublin (1908), p. 508. London. ’ In a newspaper article of 1912, the scientist Ray Lankester discussed food and cookery and included a comment that ‘a considerable section of middle-class women are allowed by the men, who should guide them so as to make them honourable and useful members of the community, to grow up in complete ignorance of the essential parts of the arts of cookery’. Lankester, E.R. (1920) More Science from an Easy Chair, 3rd edn, p. 123. Methuen, London. Ronneberg, C.E. (1970) H.E. Armstrong, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 1 , pp. 288-289. Scribner’s, New York. Keeble, F.W. (1941) Obituary Notices of Fellows of the RoyalSociety, Vol. 3 . pp. 229- 245. Royal Society, London. Jenkins, E.W. op. cit. , Foreword p.v. The author pointed out that ‘Nuffield Science’ of the 1960’s can ‘claim a recognisable, if somewhat remote, ancestor in Armstrong’s heurism’. Introduction (1982) Nuffield Home Economics: Teachers’ Guide to the Basic Course, p. x. Hutchinson, London. Nuffield Home Economics Newsletter (1980), Autumn, p. 1. Armstrong, H.E. (1903) op. cit . , p. vii.

28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45. 46.

305