Page images

practice teaching and criticism should not be, or, as the Germans would say, ein abschreckendes Beispiel. The objects of his criticism are obviously based on a total misconception of the principles of teaching, the province of criticism, and the character of a critic.

As fully as the time will permit, it is my purpose to describe one conception of practice teaching, as well as the character of the critic and the province of criticism, in support of the thesis under discussion.

Quoting from our eminent critic: "It is believed that the best way to teach a liberal art is to teach the essential doctrines and principles that underlie that art. Law, medicine, and theology are taught on this plan.” In such schools the science is learned, not the art, he says. Nominally this may be true, actually it is not. In the hospital the student visits the patients, accompanied by his instructor, makes his own diagnosis and issues his own prescriptions; when his instructor feels that he may be trusted further, he is allowed more freedom. The instructor keeps a close supervision, but does not interfere so long as the student makes no mistake. The student is not embarrassed nor distressed by this relationship, but is strengthened by the consciousness of an everpresent help. The truth of the quotation is a matter of indifference, however, as the cases cited and the training of the normal-school student are not parallel.

The minimum entrance requirement to our normal school is the minimum requirement to teach in the public schools of the state. The candidate for training in the normal school is then from the beginning a licensed teacher, and were he given charge of a class upon his entrance, nothing more could happen to him, or to the children, than is allowed to happen every day in the public schools. The candidate spends almost two years from this time in trying to master the fundamental principles of his art and in discovering their application in well-directed observation of teaching in the training department. When he does begin to work in the light of these principles, which are as much his as unapplied principles can be, the value of the work to himself and the children cannot be successfully questioned, provided, of course, that the conditions are what they may be, and what they are in many schools.

In the first place, if the student has shown no grasp of the principles involved in a recitation, if he has shown no power of analyzing a recitation and no ability to think out a recitation in a given subject with a given class — that is, if he is unable to plan one -- of course he will never be placed in charge of a class. It would be positively injurious to everybody concerned if he were. Having shown himself proficient in these things, the student may be allowed the responsibility of a class. The class is to be his, really his, as much his as would be a class of any grade in a village or city school where he would be under a supervising principal. This class is to be his an hour each day for perhaps half a year. He calls for it at the appointed hour, conducts it to the recitation room and back. He is responsible to the room teacher or the principal for the order and progress of the class while it is under his care, just as the teacher of a grade in a city is responsible to the superintendent, or to the principal of the building. In the former case he is held to a much stricter account than he would be in the latter.

Every such teacher, and every teacher that works at all efficiently, must have in mind more or less clearly what he expects to accomplish, and also how he expects to accomplish it. Germany's greatest field marshal says that it is, indeed, much to see the end toward which one strives, but it is a great deal more to find the way by which one is to reach it. In order that the critic teacher may know how the student is striving to realize his ideal, and in order for him to be most helpful without being too frequent a visitor in his class, the student is required to give the critic a detailed written plan of what he expects to accomplish in each recitation, and the how thereof. If there is need of it, the plan is subjected to a thoro discussion before it is carried into practice.

The student is not to be mastered by his plan; he is to be master of it. It is believed that the general who has made the most thoro and detailed plan of the coming battle


based on the knowledge of the strength and whereabouts of his own forces and those of the enemy, because of that plan will be most liable to inspirations of the moment, and most ready to take advantage of the least false step of his adversary. He never dreams that he must follow a prearranged plan, if events disclose a better. Events, however, never disclose a plan to a planless man. The same is eminently true of the teacher. The full force of the old saying holds here : “Unto him that has [a plan) more shall be added." The teacher that has his lesson mastered in this way is the only one that can be really and fruitfully free, and only under such conditions can his experience be most valuable.

These plans are conscious efforts to make the general individual, to make fundamental pedagogical principles concrete. The student teacher has for the last year and a half been talking glibly and learnedly, perhaps even enthusiastically, about these farreaching fundamentals. Let him keep his enthusiasm, and he will if it is not a mushroom growth, for he is to see just what these laws of teaching should mean to him in the class

In this struggle, which is not without its discouragements, and certainly not without great delights, his critic teacher is his sympathetic friend and helper.

The freedom that is granted the student should be everything that is not license; it should be the freedom of intelligence; he should be limited in what he may do only by the great laws of teaching to which he has declared his allegiance. In fact, only in accord nce with these laws can he be free. Under the kindly and intelligent guidance of his critic teacher he applies these tests and moves consciously toward his ideal. In this experience he comes face to face with the diffculties while there is someone near to whom he may appeal, and who, in these concrete cases, may point the way to solutions which would otherwise be discovered at great waste of time and energy to himself and the children. Here, as in no other way, he realizes the difference between talking about aims; good, bad, and indifferent questions; sequence of estions; self-activity; child doing the work, etc.; and actually doing creditable work from all these points of view economically. Here he gradually becomes his own critic.

Professor Rein says concerning this point :

The work of the schoolroom is, and will remain, the test for how much the student must yet add to his inner treasures, first of knowledge, but, above all, of clearness, depth, and warmth of moral sentiment. Les us conceive the work of our little practice school in this spirit. We are fortunate that we have it. small and modest as it is, for here we can separate the chaff from the wheat. Here is the field for the growth of character in the teacher who is willing to lessen the distance between himself and his ideal by unceasing effort, by deeds rather than words.

We have too many lamentable examples of men well-grounded in theory and left to themselves to learn the art without supervision and training. The point is well put by “The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table":

Self-made men ? Well, yes. Everybody likes and respects self-made men. It is a great deal better to be made in that way than not to be made at all. Are any of you younger people old enough to remember the Irishman's house on the marsh at Cambridgeport, which house he built from drain to with his can hands? It took him a good many years to build it, and one could see that it was a little out of plumb, and a little wavy in outline, and a little queer and uncertain in general aspect. A regular hand could certainly bare built a better house, but it was a very good home for a “self-made" carpenter's house, and people praised it and said how remarkably well the Irishman had succeeded. They never thought of praising the fine blocks of houses a little farther on.

Your self-made man whittled into shape with his own jack-knife deserves more credit, if that is all, than the regular engine-turned article, shaped by the most approved pattern, and French-polished by society and travel. But as to saying that one is in every way equal to the other, that is another matter.

A great deal has been said about criticism, not of a reassuring nature. Without criticism there is no assurance that teaching in the training department, or elsewhere, may not be positively harmful. It is necessarily expensive. There are no eyes for the student's faults but his own. His eyes have not been trained upon himself, nor is there a qualified friend at hand for consultation. The student must be made a qualified and exacting critic of himself, else his growth will cease at commencement. Eternal selfexamination is the price of continual progress toward freedom in the teacher.

The real critic is not the chronic grumbler and fault-finder with never a word of commendation; he is not one whose function is to find faults, and who must find them even if they are not apparent to the naked eye, because he is paid for it. This sometime prevalent idea is based upon a false conception of the functions of criticism. Criticism is not necessarily adverse, nor should it ever be simply an opinion or an attack upon devices or so-called “methods” in themselves, but only as they conform or do not conform to a principle. Criticism is interpretation. It calls for a perfect comprehension of the purpose of the author, the artist, the physician, or the teacher, as the case may be ; the means he has used to attain that purpose, and the result; that is : What is he seeking to accomplish? Is there anything more worthy of accomplishment in this particular case? If there is, show why. What other means would lend themselves better to this end? Wherein were the means used not economical, not most economical ? Are the results commensurate with the time and the effort ? Wherein has skill been manisested ? Do you object to any of the devices employed, or approve any? Give the principles involved. Show how they are involved. Anything in a recitation that is not capable of being based upon a pedagogical law, somewhat as a proposition in geometry may be reduced to its axioms, is not capable of proper defense. No criticism that is not capable of being so based can be either strong or helpful. In pointing out a fault in the solution of a problem in geometry, nothing but an unfortunate manner in the instructor could make it anything but helpful. No man would think of basing his criticism there on personal opinion.

In this way the criticism avoids trivialities, and is given an inevitable and impersonal character seeming to come from the very nature of things, and so is unlikely to give offense. The real freedom of the student is not touched. The critic, pointing out a new and right way, appears as the friend in need. The child making the familiar sloyd model, the oblong window-stick, sees no necessity for making the edges straight and the angles right angles, except that the instructor requires it, whereas, in the construction of a simple pencil box, without murmuring he will make six window-sticks (modified) with limitless pains as to the edges and the angles, for it is the box itself that makes the demands. There is no resentment here against the teacher.

Summing up: In the practice school, then, the student has actual teaching. He makes conscious and directed efforts to realize the laws to which he is subject in actual recitations. He has the freedom of infinite variety under these laws. He goes out into the world a self-critic, with the enthusiasm of intelligent insight, the possibility of infinite growth, and not blinded by a host of superficial devices.

Thesis XXVIII. The training school should be the correlating center of the normal school.

Dr. Lucy L. W. Wilson, department of biology, Philadelphia Normal School.--A specialist in normal schools is a product of recent conditions. In those happy days when one fairly clever man could possess in a general, yet in a sufficiently thoro, way many branches of knowledge, the head of a school could easily keep abreast of the times even in details. He could digest pedagogical pabulum rapidly enough for his teachers, and yet have time for his executive work. Nowadays the former duty is more efficiently performed by the trained specialists to be found in most normal-school faculties, and, in consequence, a new task has fallen upon the principal, viz., to put on the brakes so that the engine be not driven off the track by a specialist who can see nothing in education except in or thru his particular line. For this work more than mere knowledge of various subject-matters is required. Heavenly grace and worldly wisdom combined are a deal more necessary. Even with these it is a difficult problem to get from each department of the normal school proper the most efficient aid for the training school,

Two difficulties stand in the way:

1. The normal-school teacher too often lacks recent experience with little children in the later developments of her own subject matter.

2. The grade teacher too often is either openly or secretly opposed to the introduction of all such later developments.

The average teacher has an immense reserve fund of inertia, and is ever ready to cry "wolf,” by saying to the specialist in that emphatic way of hers: “It can't be done; the course is already overloaded; it is all very nice, but it is not practical, for we have not the time.” And then aside to her colleagues she utters that fatal phrase, “the newest fad!"

Yet there is much truth in all that she says, and unless one can put his finger on that truth, separating it from exaggeration, natural enough after all, he will be unable to make any headway against her opposition, and in fact he will be unworthy of success, since his failure to recognize this modicum of truth shows that he has not thoroly studied the conditions.

How may the specialist conquer these obstacles ?
He must first train himself, and then train the others.

He may train himself (1) by teaching in the training school himself ; (2) by studying the grade work as a whole, thus not only obtaining the knowledge that will enable him to make his subject-matter help and be helped by the other work, but also getting a sense of proportion that will keep him somewhat within bounds in his demands on the time both of the children and of the grade teacher. In teaching himself in the school of practice he has begun to train the grade teacher. He has learned the limitations, and she is learning the possibilities.

In addition to this, the specialist should further help the grade teachers by holding rather frequent and wholly meaty faculty meetingsmeetings dealing with facts and their management, rather than with the aimless discussions of questions of discipline, with which teachers are too often bored, not helped.

Two things else are essential to an intimate, helpful connection between the normal and the training school :

1. That the specialist really prepared for the work in the ways indicated above should outline the courses of study in all the grades.

2. That he should supervise the teaching both of the grade teacher and the pupil teacher, helping both by every means in his power, leading each to stand on her own feet in the end.

This, indeed, is the test of the normal-school specialist's efficiency. If he makes the teachers eager to do his special work with the children, then, and then only, has he succeeded in what should be his aim.

Æsop's fable of the “ Belly and its Members” has been quoted in other halls than this when questions of administration have been discussed. The truth that it embodies is so fundamental that its application is world-wide. It may be as clinching an illustration in educational congresses as it was in the Roman senate.

My own experience has proved to me that the period of standing apart in stubborn opposition and adverse criticism is passing away. Teachers are now hungry to be fed, grateful for what is given them, eager and able to use it for their own upbuilding. And if we specialists would only remember, what we are apt to forget, that the training school is the true center of the normal school, that our specialty must be subservient to its goud, then, indeed, will come the golden age of usefulness to all our normal schools.

Thesis XXV. The idea that a normal school should be provided with a training school and a model school besides is hardly feasible.

PRESIDENT W. E. Wilson, State Normal School, Ellensburg, Wash.---The thesis seems to assume that separate schools for observation and practice would be desirable. We are to inquire into the feasibility of a desirable policy. But is not feasibility here a local question? Why not feasible? The hindrances seem to be (1) the cost, (2) the lack of pupils perhaps; (3) adverse sentiment, and (4) increased difficulties of administration. These are surely not insurmountable hindrances everywhere. How far they are is a local question.

The vital question involved in this consideration of the general policy of normal schools is not what is feasible, but what is desirable – what is necessary for the highest efficiency of the schools.

It may safely be predicted that if it were deemed very important - even necessary to the full success of a normal school -- that separate schools for observation and practice be provided, their maintenance would be found to be feasible at once in the normal schools that are most liberally supported, and very quickly afterward such dual training schools would become common, just as training schools and kindergartens were established everywhere as soon as their necessity came to be generally accepted.

We are discussing feasibility, the assertion of our thesis, but it is the assumption that ought to have our attention. This seems to me the more important because behind the assumption that separate schools are desirable seems to be another, viz., that, after all, separation is not necessary or very important. How important is it that a school for observation distinct from the school of practice be provided ? If, as some believe, the separation of practice schools from those for study and observation is necessary in order that the art of teaching may be most advantageously studied, that is one of the most important advances in normal-school policy that should immediately be made.

In discussing this question we should consider :

1. Whether training schools, as departments of normal schools, need be made better schools for the children who compose them. It is widely thought that a training school cannot be as good a school for the children as one wholly under a regular teacher. There is a presumption against the training school as a good place for children, whether or not this is well founded. Is it not worth while to inquire whether the dual training school might not improve substantially the conditions for making the normal training school the best kind of a school for children ? A school that is not a very good school for its pupils cannot be a very good school for the students who are learning to teach in it.

2. Whether the single training school used for practice can also afford the necessary means of study, by observation of children, of the organization and management of schools and of teaching. The wisdom of founding the study of teaching upon concrete facts, upon observation of schools and children and the work of teaching, is bound to get recognition soon. The normal school must provide opportunity for its students, not merely casually to observe, but systematically to study schools in operation. It will not be a question whether these schools for study should be in the hands of beginners or expert teachers, whether under continuous instruction and government or constantly changing teachers.

3. Must not the normal school provide ample opportunity for practice and for progressive steps in practice, the last step being independent practice, the student being in charge of the school thruout the day and for a period of some weeks ?

Is it feasible to make the same school serve these several purposes well and answer the demands that progress in teaching the art of teaching is making upon the training school? Can it be a practice school for students at all stages of their progress, and yet a favorable place to form ideals and get the inspiration and suggestions which a student of any art finds in studying the work of a master ?

The question of feasibility cannot be answered by an expression of opinion or by discussion. It will take a period of twentieth-century history to dispose of it. But what if it should be found upon trial that a system of training schools can be maintained in which model schools representing all the grades, taught by teachers of superior ability, are conducted separately from the schools in which practice is carried on in two or three stages; and what if it were found that this system not only answered well each of the demands

« PreviousContinue »