Air and Gas Drilling Manual: Applications for Oil, Gas, Geothermal Fluid Recovery Wells, Specialized Construction Boreholes, and the History and Advent of the Directional DTH William C. Lyons
Sullivan and Glanz rightfully maintain that supervision is central to the renewal of classroom teaching and learning This is particularly true if you believe that education, like other professions, requires continuous learning. Although needs and goals differ at different stages of career growth, everyone whether teachers or administrators shouldbeengagedinaconstantprocessofassessmentandrenewal.Ideally,schoolsshouldbe places where professional educators, regardless of their specific roles, work as a team, sharing their expertise andcontributingtheireffortstocontinuallyimprovestudentlearning.
Since this book was first published in 1999, there are several things about schools that we have come to knowwithevengreatercertainty Thequalityofteacherpracticeismostdirectlyinfluencedbywhetherornot teachers experience schools as learning communities (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002) If the school supports collaborative work, sharing of information, and open communication among staff, it is more likely that teachers will utilize effective teaching strategies Leaders play a direct role in determining how their schools function Althoughtheleadershiproleiscomplex,ifleaders“encouragestafftoreflectonwhattheyaretrying to achieve with students and how they are doing it” (Silins et al., 2002, p. 621), and enable them to establish and pursue their own professional goals, it is more likely that teachers will perceive their school as a learning organization
In this text, Sullivan and Glanz provide educators with the analytic and technical tools that they need to be able to create a climate for learning Despite our knowledge about the effectiveness of learning organizations, schools rest in the shadow of a bureaucratic and hierarchical tradition that characterizes individualsassuperiorandsubordinate,differentiallydistributespowerandauthority,andcreatesartificialand often antagonistic role-based divisions In recognizing the strength of these mindscapes that so directly shape practice,SullivanandGlanzencouragethereaderstoexploreandchallengetheirowntraditionalbeliefsabout authority and control. They then present basic but very important communication skills that facilitate reflection and dialogue and contrast these with more traditional approaches that rely on judgment, direct control, and appeasement disempowering strategies that reinforce hierarchical barriers, preclude collaborativeproblemsolving,andconstrainpersonalgrowthandinitiative(Osterman&Kottkamp,2004).
One of the most frequent complaints from teachers is that the supervisory process is seldom useful They sit through the preobservation, observation, and feedback cycle, but it doesn’t help them improve their teaching.Therearetwoaspectsoftheprocessthatlimitsupervisoryeffectiveness(Osterman,1994).Thefirst is a lack of descriptive data and/or the failure to share those descriptive data directly with the teacher There will be no change in practice if teachers are unaware of the need for change Because our perceptions are shaped by so many factors, most of us have only an incomplete understanding of our own behavior and the effects of our actions The new teacher, for example, may perceive only her failures A more senior teacher, shaped by years of experience, may unknowingly adopt very different patterns of interaction with different groups of students, limiting their effectiveness with some. Data-based feedback enables teachers to “ see ” their
The second problem is the tendency to use the feedback conference to offer teachers suggestions for improvement. Teachers need to have information about their work, but if the purpose of the supervisory process is to encourage learning, they also need the opportunity to assume responsibility for their own professional growth. From research and experience, we know that even when supervisors gather and share objectivedatawithteachers,ratherthanencouragingdialogueaboutteachingandcollaborativeplanning,they quickly shift attention to suggestions for improvement Rather than empowering teachers to analyze and critically assess their own work, the supervisors fall into traditional patterns and provide the answers. Althoughwellintentioned,thisprescriptiveapproachlimitsteachers’potentialtofunctionasprofessionals.
To address these concerns, Sullivan and Glanz rightly direct the supervisor’s attention to data collection and feedback. They provide a rich variety of tools for gathering data about multiple dimensions of teacher practice and its connection to student learning. Equally important, they also illustrate how supervisors whetheradministratorsorfellowteachers canprovidefeedbackandengageinreflectivedialogue,optimizing professional growth and avoiding the judgmental and prescriptive approaches that limit effectiveness. In this collaborative dialogue about teaching, the responsibility for problem analysis and problem resolution shifts. Althoughthesupervisorcanstillshareideas,heorshenolongerassumesthesoleresponsibilityforsolvingthe teacher’s problems Basically, this approach offers educators a practical way to challenge traditional top-down models of authority and control, respect teachers’ professionalism, and create positive, supportive, and collaborativerelationshipsbetweenteachersandtheirsupervisors
Even more important, this approach to supervision is one that supports deep learning It is relatively easy to achieve some types of change. For example, a district can require teachers to use a particular curriculum. Meaningful change, however, requires change in underlying beliefs about teaching Thus, teachers who believe that didactic methods of instruction are appropriate are unlikely to adopt constructive approaches to teaching (Torff & Warburton, 2005). Good professional development, in whatever form, encourages teachers toexploreandassesstheirbeliefsinordertofacilitatechange Itrespectstheirprofessionalismandisbasedon assumptions that teachers are not only willing but anxious to improve, and that they have the expertise (at whateverlevel)totakeanactiveanddirectroleinshapingtheirowndevelopment.
The strategies that Sullivan and Glanz highlight in their text are techniques that ensure that supervision really will support professional learning Even though the techniques they describe are not unique, the authors’ presentation is. Not only do they provide information about various techniques that improve the quality of feedback, but they also provide a learning framework based on principles of constructivism and reflectivepracticethatfacilitatesnotjustunderstandingbutapplication
Reflective practice and constructivism share a common set of beliefs about learning (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004) First is the belief that learning is an active process requiring student engagement Learning is the ultimate responsibility of the learner, and the role of the instructor is to facilitate growth by focusing inquiry,engagingstudents,exploringandchallengingideas,andprovidingresources.Thesecondbeliefisthat ideas influence action Through experience, people develop theories about how the world works, and these theories shape their behavior Learners construct their own knowledge, building on prior experiences Accordingly, students must have opportunities to articulate, represent, and assess as well as extend their
knowledge. The third important belief is that learners construct knowledge through experience, particularly problematicexperience Pedagogically,then,itisnecessarytobuildconceptualconflictbychallengingcurrent understandingandofferingopportunitiestodevelopandtestnewwaysofthinkingandacting.
The supervisory model Sullivan and Glanz describe is built on these pedagogical principles, and the text itself admirably incorporates these ideas Each section poses problems to engage and challenge the learner Realistic cases illustrate the relationship between beliefs and practice and describe the personal and organizational obstacles that perpetuate bureaucratic practices. Reflective activities in each section raise challenging questions, stimulate interest, and encourage the articulation and critical assessment of personal beliefs.Thetextalsoprovidesfordevelopmentofskillsthroughaseriesofprogressivelychallengingactivities. Initially, learners experiment with strategies in a supportive classroom environment. The second step involves testing the new strategies in the work setting In the classroom and in the work setting, the learning process models the principles of supportive supervision. In the classroom, the students utilize a wide variety of observationstrategiesandpracticedescriptivefeedbackandcollaborativeproblemsolvingwithoneanother.In the work setting, they work closely with a colleague, testing the same strategies Each of these activities developsskill,butmoreimportant,theactualexperimentationestablishesthevalidityofthespecifictechnique andbuildslearnerconfidenceinhisorherabilitytousethesetechniqueseffectively.
In constructivism and reflective practice, in contrast to more traditional educational models, the relationship between teacher and learners is that of a partnership based on common goals for improving practice rather than on hierarchical differences related to presumed differences in expertise. The structure of thetextfacilitatesdialogueandcreatesaclimateofopenness Thelanguageisaccessible Thetoneispersonal, warm, respectful, and collegial The authors share responsibility for learning with the readers, presuming that the readers are intelligent, informed, and capable. They invite learners to supplement the text with their own suggestions, and, in fact, use creative strategies suggested by their own students These are empowering strategies that support the learning process and model the ideas about supervision that they espouse In contrast with the “inspection” model that too often characterizes school supervision, the supervisory process envisioned by Sullivan and Glanz is collaborative rather than hierarchical, dialogic versus didactic, descriptive rather than judgmental, and supportive rather than punitive This is a major shift Although the idea is appealingandevenconvincing,bringingaboutchangeinthepracticeofsupervisionisnoeasytask.Todoso, toalignactionmorecloselywiththeory,involvesmorethansimplypresentingarangeoffeasibleandeffective strategies According to Argyris and Schon (1974), ideas like these will be integrated into practice only when existing theories and patterns of behavior are identified, explored, challenged, and modified. This theoretical premise has important implications for learning If the learning process is to be effective, its learning goals must extend beyond the mere transference of knowledge to incorporating the appropriate and effective applicationofknowledge.
Normally, the challenge to facilitate the application of ideas rests on the shoulders of the instructor The textprovidestheinformation,andtheinstructorprovidesthepedagogicalexpertise Here,SullivanandGlanz have developed a text that provides information but, more important, one that engages the readers in a reflective process of observation, analysis, and experimentation designed to facilitate behavioral change By extending well beyond the normal scope of a text and exploring dimensions of belief and practice in the context of schools and leadership, the authors provide a valuable resource. The use of this text, its learning
strategies and supervisory techniques, should support realization of the book’s stated purpose: the development of educational leaders whether administrators or teachers who are able to engage in supervisiondesignedtoimprovethequalityoflearning.
wo major foci in education dominate increasingly in the second decade of the 21st century: The highstakes accountability of teachers and those who prepare them and the expanded use of standardized test data to monitor student achievement and the effectiveness of instruction We believe that the goals of consistent, improved achievement for all students and a well-developed, effective teaching force to facilitate thisimprovementarelaudableandimperativeoutcomes.Nonetheless,weareveryconcernedthattheprimacy ofstandardizedtestscoresasevaluationtoolsofstudentsandteachersalikeandtheuseofstandardizedrubrics to monitor teachers are having a detrimental effect on the collaborative environment that forms the basis of effectivesupervisionofteachingandlearningthatisatthecoreofacultureoflearning.
Therefore, in addition to continuing to focus on the issues of supervisory practice that value diverse learning styles of teachers and students alike and the technologies necessary to promote quality teaching and learning that formed the core of the third edition, we highlight an additional belief in this edition. Our declaration that instructional supervision, as best practice, is a schoolwide process in which learning and teaching are the core of the school’s mission, underlies the changes in Chapter3, the new Chapter6, and the newcasestudiesinChapter5.
The emphasis on what students are actually doing in the classroom in conjunction with what the teachers are asking the students to do lies beneath the organization of Chapter 3 We pair, wherever possible, observationinstrumentsthatpermittheobservertofocusonbothteacherandstudentevidence.
Thebestmeansofinstructionalimprovementandeffectivenessisamirroronteacherpracticeandstudent response to instruction We firmly believe that zeroing in on a specific teacher practice and the student response to that instructional strategy or vice versa provides a two-way mirror that fosters deep and longlasting change We prefer wherever possible the term evidence over the word data The current use of student standardized test scores as the primary source of information for student and teacher evaluation narrows the contemporary meaning and use of the term data. Evidence retains a sense of varied ways of judging (Hazi, 2012) that can include among others, teacher and student observations, document and research review, collaborativeinquiry,andmyriadalternativeformsofsupervision
This emphasis on the instructional core and its relation to supervision of instruction is highlighted in our newcasestudiesonalternativeapproachestosupervision LearningWalks,LessonStudy,andBookGroups in Chapter 5 These case studies are based on work one of us did in supporting a new school leader in developing a comprehensive supervisory approach to improving teaching and learning. They focus on the
professionalization of teachers within a learning community; we have eliminated less current cases. The new Chapter6comprisesacasestudythatdescribesthejourneyofaleaderandherschoolassheengagesherstaff in building a foundation of core beliefs and values related to the role of innovative supervision in teacher growthandstudentlearning.
Inkeepingwithourongoingbeliefthatunlessattentionisdrawntodeepchangesininstructionalpractice, change will remain ephemeral (e.g., Fullan, 2006), we have added observational instruments that will support the deep implementation of current practices, that is, push-in support, math common core standards, and so on
We believe that supervision as a dynamic process that facilitates dialogue to promote instructional improvement is central to the renewal of classroom teaching and learning in the 21st century. Rather than merely describing and explaining varied models of supervision, this book presents the reader with researchbasedandempiricallytestedstrategiesandtechniques.
By offering an overview of approaches for instructional improvement and some specific supervisory strategies, this volume encourages the reader to develop her or his own supervisory platform or personal principlesofpractice.Themainfeatureofthistextisthehands-ondevelopmentofessentialsupervisoryskills.
This text is meant for use in undergraduate and graduate courses on instructional improvement and by individuals in leadership positions in schools and districts, including teams of teachers and teacher leaders It contains unique features that set it apart from similar works The text, designed to be user friendly, provides examplesofsummarysheetsandobservationchartsaswellas“cribsheets”toenhancereviewandactualusein the classroom Corwin provides information about web-based resources for the book and e-book purchase Throughout each chapter are reflective microlabs and other activities designed to reinforce new material and concepts.
Why is a book of this nature important? In an era in which monitoring through brief walk-throughs, teacher accountability based primarily on standardized test scores, and the use of lengthy standardized rubrics as evaluation instruments in the guise of supervision of instruction, those individuals who argue that supervisionisvitaltoinstructionalimprovementmustremainvigilanttopreservethebestthatsupervisionhas to offer With the continual emphasis on student outcomes and state and national standards, supervision is morethanever anindispensablelinkthatinspiresgoodteachingandpromotesstudentlearning.Webelieve that when teachers are encouraged to reflect on their teaching and when individuals with supervisory responsibilities engage teachers in conversations about classroom instruction, the stage for instructional improvementisset.
This book, along with other publications, such as the HandbookofResearchonSchoolSupervision (Firth & Pajak, 1998); Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues, and Controversies (Garman, 1997); Handbook of Instructional Leadership: How Really Good Principals Promote Teaching and Learning (Blase & Blase, 1998); Mentoring and Supervision for Teacher Development (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998); Differentiated Supervision (Northern Valley Regional High School District, 1996); SuperVision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2010); Interpersonal and Consultant Supervision Skills: A Clinical Model (Champagne & Hogan, 2006); Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools (Costa & Garmston, 1997); Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts, 3rd edition (Zepeda, 2012); Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Theory Into Practice, 3rd edition (Nolan &
Hoover, 2011); and Supervising Instruction: Differentiating for Teacher Success, 3rd edition (Pajak, 2008), indicate the resurgence and attention given to supervision We believe that such attention is not only warranted but necessary so that the integrity of instructional improvement within classrooms across America and around the world will be maintained. Although scholars may busy themselves with philosophical intricacies or theoretical nuances about the viability and definition of supervision, practitioners know too well howimportanteffectivesupervisionisformaintainingandencouraginginstructionalexcellence.
Critical assumptions about supervision underlie this work. First and foremost, we maintain that supervision of instruction as an ongoing, nonjudgmental, reflective, and collaborative process that engages teachersindialogueforthepurposeofimprovingteachingandstudentlearningremainsapotentforcetoward promoting instructional excellence in schools. Moreover, the goal of supervision is to facilitate the process of teaching and learning through a multitude of approaches that can encompass curriculum and staff development,actionresearch,andpeer,self-,andstudentassessment.Thiscombinationcanformthebasisof transformationalleadershipandchangeinadepartment,gradelevel,school,anddistrict.
This text follows a logical and orderly progression, all the while encouraging the reader to understand the changingcontextofsupervisionandtodeveloprequisiteknowledge,skills,anddispositionsaboutsupervision. It culminates in the development of a personal supervisory platform and offers suggestions for a collaborative planforsupervision
Chapter1 provides a historical and theoretical framework for supervision This foundation, along with an initial belief inventory that should be completed before reading the chapter and again at the end of the course, permitsthereadertobeginlayingthegroundworkforapersonalsupervisoryplatform
Chapter 2 introduces basic interpersonal tools for initiating and providing feedback on classroom observations.Thereaderisintroducedto“cribsheets”topracticefeedbackdialoguebetweenprofessionalsand foruseonsite Thetheoryandpracticeofreflectioninaction,acrucialtoolforself-reflectionandassessment, is also introduced Chapter3 reviews sample classroom observation tools and techniques in a way that allows readerstopracticetheminthecollegeclassroomorworkshopandonsiteandtodevelopthisessentialskill.In Chapter 4, the previously learned observation tools and techniques and feedback approaches are integrated into our reflective clinical supervision cycle framework Opportunities for practice and simulations precede recommendationsforsite-basedinitiation.
Chapter5presentssevenalternativeapproachestosupervisioncurrentlyinpractice Authenticcasestudies introduceeachapproach,followedbyadefinitionandsuggestedstepsforimplementation Chapter6presents a current example of how a transformational leader begins to grapple with change through a focus on instructional supervision the beginnings, challenges, and initial successes Chapter 7, the final chapter and the culmination of the learning process, encourages readers to create their own personal supervisory platform, that is, a personal theory or principles of practice. In addition, this chapter includes a guide to facilitating the developmentofacollaborativesitevisionandplanforsupervision
We hope you find this new edition practical and user friendly We welcome your input for website suggestions and additional changes in future editions Contact us at SusanSullivan@csicunyedu and at glanz@yu.edu.
Susan Sullivan would like to thank David Podell, the former provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at the College of Staten Island, for his ongoing support in all of her academic endeavors. She would also like to express appreciation to the faculty and administration of Ditmas Intermediate School, in Brooklyn,NewYork,and,inparticular,NancyBrogan,LynnePagano,ElkeSavoy,MadelineCastaneda,and Nasreen Farooqui for their willingness and enthusiasm in developing a peer coaching model in the International Institute at their school Carmen Farina and her staff were models not only in the development of alternatives to traditional supervision but also in their proactive, open sharing of their successes and challenges. Karen Osterman of Hofstra University introduced the world of reflective practice to Susan and continuestoreflectwithheronteachingandintellectualendeavors
Jeffrey Glanz would like to acknowledge his colleagues in the Council of Professors of Instructional Supervision (COPIS) for stimulating, over the years, many of the ideas in this volume. Special thanks to colleagues Bert Ammerman and Jim McDonnell of Northern Valley Regional High School District for their innovative work, which formed the basis for one of the case studies in Chapter 5 Jeffrey would also like to acknowledge his marvelous doctoral students (Michael Zauderer, Adam Dobrick, Aviva Edelstein, and Shalom Rohr) who helped with elements in our revised Chapters 5 and 6 In particular, they helped create variouscasestudiesthatreflectedthelivedrealitiesofseveralschoolsinwhichwework
Discovering Diverse Content Through Random Scribd Documents
on it for three days, without dug-outs, and blown in in places, but it offered a little cover. Their right line, for nearly half a mile, was absolutely unrecognizable save in a few isolated spots. The shredded ground was full of buried iron and timber which made digging very difficult, and, in spite of a lot of cleaning up by their predecessors, dead Canadians lay in every corner. It ran through what had once been a wood, and was now a dreary collection of charred and splintered stakes, “to the tops of which, blown there by shells, hung tatters of khaki uniform and equipment.” There was no trace of any communication-trenches, so companies had to stay where they were as long as the light lasted. Battalion H.Q. lived in the brick-kiln aforementioned, just west of the Zillebeke road, and company commanders walked about in the dark from one inhabited stretch to the next, trusting in Providence. So, too, did the enemy, whom Captain Alexander found, to the number of six, ambling promiscuously in the direction of Ypres. They challenged, he fired, and they blundered off—probably a lost wiring-party. In truth, neither front line knew exactly where the other lay in that chaos; and, both being intent upon digging themselves in ere the guns should begin again, were glad enough to keep still. Our observationparties watched the Germans as they crept over the ridge at dusk and dropped into the old Canadian line, where their policies could be guessed at from the nature of the noises they made at work; but no one worried them.
On the 20th June an unlucky shell pitched into No. 1 Company, killing three, wounding two, and shocking five men; otherwise there was quiet, and their brigadier came round the support-trenches that day and complimented all hands on their honesty as craftsmen. As he said, it would have been easy for them to have slacked off on their last night in a position to which they were not returning, whereas they had worked like beavers, and so the battalion which relieved them (the Royal Canadian Regiment resting at Steenvoorde since Hooge where it had lost three hundred men) found good cover and fair wire all along the sector. The Canadians were late, for their motor-buses went adrift somewhere down the road, and the
Battalion only “just caught the last train” out of Ypres and reached camp near Vlamertinghe at dawn on the 21st June.
It had been a strange interlude of ash-pits and charnel-houses, sandwiched between open-air preparations, for that always postponed “spring meeting.” No troops are the better for lying out, unrelieved by active reprisals, among shrivelled dead; and even the men, who love not parades, were pleased at a few days of steady barrack-square drill, when a human being walks and comports himself as though he were a man, and not a worm in the mire or a slave bound to bitter burdens and obscene tasks. At Vlamertinghe they found, and were glad to see him, Captain FitzGerald, recovered after three weeks’ sickness in England, and joyfully back before his time; and Lieutenant R. McNeill, who had acted as Adjutant, returned to the command of No. 2 Company in the absence of Captain Bird, gone sick. They were busied at Battalion H.Q. with the preparation of another raid to be carried out on the night of the 2nd July “as part of the demonstration intended to occupy the attention of the Germans in this locality while more important events were happening elsewhere.” Lieutenant F. Pym, a bold, daring, and collected officer, was chosen to command the little action, and each company sent up eight volunteers and one sergeant, from whom thirty men and one sergeant were finally picked and set to rehearsing every detail.
On the 28th June they moved up to within four miles of the front and lay at Elverdinghe—two companies and Battalion H.Q. in the château itself, where they were singularly comfortable, and two in the canal bank, in brick and sand-bag dug-outs. It was true that all furniture and pictures had gone from the château with the windowglass, and that swallows nested in the cornices of the high, stalesmelling rooms, but the building itself, probably because some trees around blocked direct observation, was little changed, and still counted as one of the best places in the line for Brigade reserves. Their trenches, however, across the battered canal presented less charm. The front line was “dry on the whole,” but shallow; the support quite good, but the communication-trenches (it was the
Battalion’s first experience of Skipton Road) were variously wet, blown in, swamped, or frankly flooded with three feet of water. Broken trenches mean broken companies and more work for company commanders, but some of the platoons had to be scattered about in “grouse butts” and little trenches of their own, a disposition which tempts men to lie snug, and not to hear orders at the first call.
T H E R A I D O F T H E 2 N D J U LY
All through the 1st of July our guns bombarded their chosen front with the object of cutting, not too ostentatiously, the wire where our raid was going to take place, and of preparing the way on the right for an attack by the 3rd Guards Brigade on a small German salient that had to be reduced. The enemy answered with a new type of trench-mortar shell, nine inches in diameter, fired from a rifled mortar of high trajectory at a thousand yards’ range. The shock and smash of it were worse than a 5.9, and did much damage to Nile Trench, but caused no casualties. The 2nd July was the day for the raid itself, and just as Battalion Headquarters were discussing the very last details, an urgent message from Brigade Headquarters came in to them—“Please hasten your report on pork and bean rations.”
The notion was that our 18-pounders and 4.5 hows. with a couple of trench-mortars, would open heavily at twenty minutes to ten. Ten minutes later, the Stokes mortars were to join in. At ten the guns would lift and make a barrage while the Stokes mortars attended to the flanks of the attack. It was a clear evening, so light, indeed, that at the last minute the men were told to keep their jackets on lest their shirts should betray them. (It was then, men said later, that the raid should have been postponed.) Everything was quite quiet, and hardly a shot was being fired anywhere, when the party lined up under Lieutenant F. Pym. Our bombardment opened punctually, but drew no answer from the enemy for ten minutes. Then they put down a barrage behind our front line, which was the origin of all the
trouble to come. At the last minute, one single unrelated private, appearing from nowhere in particular, was seen to push his way down the trench, climbing over the raiders where they crouched waiting for the life-or-death word. Said an officer, who assumed that at the least he must bear vital messages: “Who are you?” “R.F.A. trench-mortar man, sir,” was the reply. Then, “Where the devil are you going?”—“Going to get my tea, sir.” He passed on, mess-tin in hand, noticing nothing that was outside of his own immediate show; for of such, mercifully, were the armies of England.
Meantime the enemy barrage increased on Nile Trench, and the front trenches began to gap badly. There was still light enough to give a good view of the German parapets when our raiders went over the top, and several machine-guns opened on them from the enemy second line. This was a bad kick-off, for, with our leading raiders out in the open, it would have been murder to have held the rest back. They all went on into the barrage and the machine-gun fire, and from that point the account of what actually, or supposedly, happened must, as usual, be collected from survivors. The whole attack seems to have reached the German wire which was “well cut in places.” Here our men were checked by machine-gun fire (they probably ran up to the muzzles of them) and some bombing. They stopped and began to bomb back. Pym rushed forward through the leading men, jumped into the trench, landed in an empty German bay, shouting to them to follow, turned left with a few men, reached the door of a machine-gun dug-out with its gun in full blast, broke in, found two men at work, knocked one of them off the gun and, with the help of Private Walshe, made him prisoner. Our bombers, meantime, had spread left and right, as laid down, to hold each end of the captured section, but had further to block a communicationtrench which entered it about the middle, where the enemy was trying to force his way in. It is difficult to say whether there was not an attack on both flanks as well. At any rate, a general bomb-scuffle followed, in which our men held up the enemy and tried to collect prisoners. The captured section of trench only contained one dead and five living. One of these “proved unmanageable and had to be
killed.” Four were hurried back under escort for samples, but two of these were killed by their own shell-fire on the road. The R.E. officer looked round, as his duty was, to find things to demolish, but the trench was clean and empty. He was hit twice, but managed to get back. Three gas-experts had also been attached to the expedition. Two of them were wounded on the outward run. The third searched the trench but found no trace of gas engines. Some papers and documents were snatched up from the dug-outs, but he who took charge of them did not live to hand over. The barrage grew heavier; the machine-gun fire from the enemy second line never ceased; and the raiders could see the home-parapet going up in lumps. It was an exquisitely balanced choice of evils when, at about ten past ten, Lieutenant Pym blew his horn for the withdrawal. A minute or two later, men began to trickle over our parapet through the barrage, and here the bulk of the casualties occurred. Our guns ceased fire at twenty past ten, but the enemy battered savagely at our front line with heavies and trench-mortars till eleven. The result was that “the front line, never very good, became chaotic, and the wounded had to be collected in undamaged bays.” It was hopeless to attempt to call the roll there, so what raiders could stand, with the two surviving prisoners, were sent up to Brigade Headquarters while the wounded were got across the open to Lancashire Farm and the trolley-line there. Pym was nowhere to be found, and though some men said, and honestly believed, that they had seen him re-enter our lines, he was not of the breed which would have done this till he had seen the last of his command out of the German trenches. He may have got as far as the German wire on his way back and there, or in that neighbourhood, have been killed; but he was never in our trench again after he left it. Others, too, of that luckless party bore themselves not without credit. For example, a signaller, name not recorded, who laid his telephone wire up to the trench across No Man’s Land and had it cut by a shell while he was seeking for Lieutenant Pym. On his return he came across a man shot in the legs, and bore him, under heavy shell and machine-gun fire, to our wire which was not constructed for helpless wounded to get through. The signaller dropped into the trench, calling on Sergeant
