« AnteriorContinuar »
that the schools of today are not what they ought to be. We contend that the system now in practise is admirable, but that the instruments by which it is operated are not of the best. By the present system all children are offered—yes, are compelled to accept-a free education, and in the unfolding time of their natures their minds develop with their bodies. In order that the minds of children develop naturally, they should be developed broadly at first, instead of starting in at the beginning to specialize. Nature is, after all, pretty wise, and we might well pattern after her when we seek means for developing the mind. In the beginning of the development of the body of a child, one part does not grow to perfection alone, but all organs and members develop gradually together. A child who is destined to become a great optician or astronomer does not develop from the beginning a strong, piercing eye; a youth who will one day become a successful farmer is not in youth a paragon of brawn. Nature develops the different parts of a child's body simultaneously, gives him sturdy arms, clear eyes, a strong heart, good lungs, all at the same time. Should not the mind grow broad, study mathematics, languages, history, geography before it commences to specialize? Specialization may be all right in its place, but its place does not seem to be in the elementary schools.
On the other hand, the public school system seems an ideal theory. The main trouble with the educational system seems to be the low standard which it has for its instruments, that is, for its teachers. If the criterion for instructors were higher, naturally the instruction would be more worthy, the student would be better prepared, and there would be more who would be enough interested to complete their educations. Many teachers, even in the first-class high schools, seem to have lost sight of the fundamental reason for teaching. They seem to imagine that they are placed in the schools that they may find out how little or how much the pupils know. The question and answer method of conducting recitations is used nowadays, to determine a child's class standing in order that proper grades may be given. Grades are a good thing in so far as they show a student where his weak points are, or encourage him to continue if he already be doing good work. But the plan of grading is wrong in so far as it is the end for which student and teacher hold recitations. The real reason for having teachers in charge of schools is that they, by their greater knowledge, may guide the thought of the pupils along the proper channels, and shall supplement and impress upon the student the things they learn from their books. The proper function of the Socratic method of recitation is to enforce what is said in the texts, and to encourage originality and individual thought by drawing out the impressions and opinions of the pupils thru questions. The teacher should seek to develop mind instead of memory.
In order to accomplish the desired effect, the students, in the first place, must be interested in their studies. It is an obvious fact that when one is interested in a subject he can do more efficient work than he can when the particular branch of study is compulsory. A professor once said that the reason many people find the higher branches distasteful or even positively difficult is because the foundation work has not been well done. The fault lies at the door of both teacher and student, but the greater blame belongs to the teacher. Children enter school wide-eyed and expectant; the things told them are marvelous, and one new wonder after the other is unfolded before them; they are exultant when they are able to spell" cat ” or “mat,” and exuberant when they can figure out that 2+10=12. In other words, the new learning is presented attractively. But, a little farther on, when the children enter the grammar grades, we hear them complain of hard lessons, which are so uninteresting. Going to the root of the matter, we find that the teachers assign the lessons as tasks, not as interesting research or investigation, which makes them naturally irksome. Too often the teacher is the taskmaster, instead of being the co-student with the pupil. It is no wonder that the school-teacher is looked upon as the cross and crabbed old maid, gaunt and thin, with stern spectacled eyes. It is no wonder that so many children hate school and drop out as soon as they have reached the age limit.
limit. It can bear repetition, then, that a higher standard for teachers to measure up to should be set up, and that all teachers should be required to pass as rigid an examination in pedagogy as in mathematics, or any other study, and should be well able to present learning to the pupils in an interesting way.
One of the serious mistakes made by teachers is due to their faulty ideas of discipline. Some teachers make their pupils antagonistic to them, and thus ruin all chances of being useful to them. Discipline, engendered by respect for a teacher, spontaneous and involuntary, is essential; but tyranny too often replaces the bearing of a teacher which demands respect, and is rewarded by good discipline. Not only in the matter of keeping strict order are some teachers tyrants, but tyranny is often very noticeable in the matter of tests and examinations. Tests are excellent in many cases. It is the way in which they are announced and spoken of that raises the objection. A class is often told that an examination will count half of the term grade, and that a flunk will pull the grade down wofully. Such threats are behind cramming. No discussion need be given why cramming is injurious. The fact that cramming is useless and often positively detrimental, has often been proven. Is it then necessary to urge that examinations be given merely for the purpose of review, with nothing said about the grade? Is it necessary to emphasize the fact that the student and the teacher should be co-students together, and that school work should be so conducted that children find it a pleasure, not a task? If such progress were made there would be more people complete their educations, and instead of there being many pupils there would be an increased percentage of students among those who go to school.
The common fallacy in the present theory of education could not be rectified by schools for specialization, since froni the social and the financial standpoints such schools would be impracticable and, in the light of common sense, we must deem them out of accord with Nature, the all-wise teacher. The fallacy is the teacher's conception of duty, and improvement is needed in the preparation, first, of the teachers themselves. They must recognize that their duty is to guide their pupils in their pursuit of knowledge, and that their questioning must be, not to ascertain the degree of knowledge to which their pupils have attained, but to draw out the impressions already in the minds of the students, as well as to suggest new lines of thought for research and investigation. The school should be a place in which originality and individuality should be developed. The teacher should not adhere so closely to the text that the pupils have no liberty in giving vent to their own ideas upon the subjects discust. If a student figures a subject out for himself, he will know much more about it than he will if he merely learn it from a book. If opportunity be given for classroom discussion the student will learn selfappreciation and self-reliance. The good teacher dare not hold the students down too closely to the text or to rigid discipline; he must give freedom and make the work interesting; he must not be a taskmaster, but a student with the students, and all his methods must be conducive to interesting his pupils.
The keynote of successful education of the masses is, then, education of those who are to teach. The teacher's education must embrace the branches to be taught and, in particular, pedagogy and effective methods of presenting learning. Such a change in the educational system will be more beneficial than the substitution of special schools would be, and would make school life a pleasure for children, would increase the desire to give expression to personal thought and investigation, and would strengthen the personality and individuality of the students, giving them self-appreciation and self-reliance. Men are but thinking animals, and the sooner one learns to think originally, and be self-reliant in his thinking, the sooner he rises from the level of mere creatures and attains the place of Man. Surely, this evolution of men from creatures is the function of school, and, since it is so important, it makes good schools under good teachers imperative.
MARGARET BROWN MOORE UNIVERSITY OF WOOSTER
Principles of logic-By GEORGE HAYWARD JOYCE. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908. xx+429 p. 6s. 6d.
This book is another of the many excellent ones that have come from Stonyhurst, issued, it seems fair to presume, with the purpose both of supplying textbooks to those of the English tongue who hold to neo-scholasticism, and also of vindicating the point of view of this minority before the larger part of us who have opposing views. If any there be who do not admit this vindication as a fact accomplished, certainly none can deny the value of the series not only as affording an able and sympathetic introduction to scholasticism, but also as showing how scholasticism, in the form now frequently called neo-scholasticism, looks at present-day thought and method.
Perhaps none of the Stonyhurst books more thoroly answers to the purposes suggested than does the book of Professor Joyce's under review. As a textbook in logic for students in those schools which adhere to neo-scholasticism the book seems exceedingly well adapted. In fact, it were much to be wisht that those who seek their logical theory along other lines could have the advantages of such perfection of system and such clearness of representation as characterize this book. Whatever the opponents of scholasticism may urge against that system, it must be admitted that the successive efforts of so many able men working along so nearly the same line, have produced a system of thought wonderfully coherent in its parts and wonderfully clear in its statement.
If the reader will compare Professor Joyce's treatment of any of the traditional topics with that to be found in our “standard ” treatises, he will, I think, readily admit the superiority of the former in the respects indicated. Contrast, for example, Joyce's treatment of definition with Mill's.