How to Study and Teaching how to Study

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Preface

Some seven or eight years ago the question of how to teach children to study happened to be included in a list of topics that I hastily prepared for discussion with one of my classes. On my later examination of this problem I was much surprised, both at its difficulty and scope, and also at the extent to which it had been neglected by teachers. Ever since that time the two questions, How adults should study, and How children should be taught to study, have together been my chief hobby.

The following ideas are partly the result of reading; but since there is a meagre quantity of literature bearing on this general theme, they are largely the result of observation, experiment, and discussion with my

contributions in these pages, for I have endeavored to preserve and nse every good suggestion that came from them ; and I am glad to acknowledge here my indebtedness to them.

In addition I must express my thanks for valuable criticisms to my colleague, Dr. George D. Strayer, and also to Dr. Lida B. Earhart, whose suggestive monograph on the same general subject has just preceded

this publication.

The Author.

Teachers College, May 6, 1909.

Part I Present Methods Of Study; Nature Op Study And Its Principal Factors

L Indications that young People do not learn

TO STUDY PROPERLY ; THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE

Evil 3

II. The Nature or Study, and its principal Factors 12

part n

NATURE OF THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS IN STUDY, AND THEIR RELATION TO CHILDREN

HI. Provision for specific purposes, as one Factor

in Study 31

IV. The supplementing of Thought, as a second

Factor in Study 61

V. The Organization of Ideas, as a third Factor

in Study 86

VI. Judging of the soundness and general worth

of Statements, as a fourth Factor in Study 135 viii CONTENTS

VII. Memorizing, as a fifth Factor in Study . . 161

Yin. The using of Ideas, as a sixth Factor in Study 192

IX. Provision for a tentative rather than a fixed Attitude toward Knowledge, as a seventh Factor in Study 220

X. Provision for Individuality, as an eighth Factor in Study 246

Part III Conclusions

XL Full meaning of Study ; relation of Study to

Children and to the School 283

INDEX 313

Part I Present Methods Of Study; Nature Of Study, And Its Principal

FACTORS y

Chapter I

INDICATIONS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE DO NOT LEARN TO STUDY properly; THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE EVIL

No doubt every (me can recall peculiar methods of study that he or some one else has at some time followed. During my attendance at high school ,«,. , I often studied aloud at home, along with example* of several other temporary or permanent mem- ** bers of the family. I remember becoming exasperated at times by one of my girl companions. She not only read her history aloud, but as she read she stopped to repeat each sentence five times with great vigor. Although the din interfered with my own work, I could not help but admire her endurance; for the physical labor of mastering a lesson was certainly equal to that of a good farm hand, for the same period of time.

This way of studying history seemed extremely ridiculous. But the method pursued by myself and several others in beginning algebra at about the same time was not greatly superior. Our text-book contained several long sets of problems which were the terror of the class, and scarcely erne of which we were able to solve alone. We had several friends, however, who could solve them, and, by calling upon them for

help, we obtained the "statement" for each one. All these statements I memorized, and in that way I was able to "pass off" the subject.

A few years later, when a school principal, I had a fifteen-year-old boy in my school who was intolerably lazy. His ambition was temporarily aroused, however, when he bought a new book and began the study of history. He happened to be the first one called upon, in the first recitation, and he started off finely. But soon he stopped, in the middle of a sentence, and sat down. When I asked him what was the matter, he simply replied that that was as far as he had got. Then, on glancing at the book, I saw that he had been reproducing the text verbatim, and the last word that he had uttered was the last word on the first page.

These few examples suggest the extremes to which young people may go in their methods of study. The first instance might illustrate the muscular method of learning history; the second, the memoriter method of reasoning in mathematics. I have never been able to imagine how the boy, in the third case, went about his task; hence, I can suggest no name for his method.

While these methods of study are ridiculous, I am not at all sure that they are in a high degree excep- OoUaoti tional. The most extensive investigation of examples of this subject has been made by Dr. Lida B. Earhart, 1 and the facts that she has collected reveal a woeful ignorance of the whole subject of study.

Among other tests, she assigned to eleven- and twelve-year-old children a short selection from a text-

1 Systematic Study in the Elementary Schools, A popular form of this thesis, entitled Teaching Children to Study, is published in the Riverside Educational Monographs.

IMPROPER METHODS 5

book in geography, with the following directions: "Here is a lesson from a book such as you use in class. Do whatever you think you ought to do in studying this lesson thoroughly, and then tell (write down) the different things you have done in studying it. Do not write anything else." 1

Out of 842 children who took this test, only fourteen really found, or stated that they had found, the subject of the lesson. Two others said that they would find it. Eighty-eight really found, or stated that they had found, the most important parts of the lesson; twentyone others, that they would find them. Four verified the statements in the text, and three others said that they would do that. Nine children did nothing; 158 "did not understand the requirements"; 100 gave irrelevant answers; 119 merely "thought," or "tried to understand the lesson," or "studied the lesson"; and 324 simply wrote the facts of the lesson. In other words, 710 out of the 842 sixth- and seventh-grade pupils who took the test gave indefinite and unsatisfactory answers. This number showed that they had no clear knowledge of the principal things to be done in mastering an ordinary text-book lesson in geography. Yet the schools to which they belonged were, beyond doubt, much above the average in the quality of their instruction.

In a later and different test, in which the children were asked to find the subject of a certain lesson that was given to them, 301 out of 828 stated the subject fairly well. The remaining 527 gave only partial, or indefinite, or irrelevant answers. Only 317 out of the

1 Ibid., Chapter 4.

828 were able to discover the most important fact in the lesson. Yet determining the subject and the leading facts are among the main things that any one must do in mastering a topic. How they could have been intelligent in their study in the past, therefore, is difficult to comprehend.

It is, perhaps, unnecessary to collect proofs that young people do not learn how to study, because Teachers' teachers admit the fact very generally. In* eompkhita deed, it is one of the common subjects of methods of co^kint among teachers in the elementary ■tody* school, in the high school, and in the college. All along the line teachers condole with one another over this evil, college professors placing the blame on the instructors in the high school, and the latter passing it down to teachers in the elementary school. Parents who supervise their children's studies, or who otherwise know about their habits of work, observe the same fact with sorrow. It is at least refreshing to find one matter, in the much-disputed field of education, on which teachers and parents are well agreed.

How about the methods of study among teachers themselves ? Unless they have learned to study prop-

M thod f er ty* y oun 8 people cannot, of course, be ex- §tndy among pected to acquire proper habits from them.

The most enlightening single experience I have ever had on this question came several years ago in connection with a series of lectures on Primary Education. A course of such lectures had been arranged for me without my full knowledge, and I was unexpectedly called upon to begin it before a class of some seventy-five teachers. It was necessary to commence

IMPROPER METHODS 7

speaking without having definitely determined my first point. I had, however, a few notes which I was attempting to decipher and arrange, while talking as best I could, when I became conscious of a slight clatter from all parts of the room. On looking up I found that the noise came from the pencils of my audience, and they were writing down my first pointless remarks. Evidently discrimination in values was not in their program. They call to mind a certain theological student who had been very unsuccessful in taking notes from lectures. In order to prepare himself, he spent one entire summer studying stenography. Even after that, however, he was unsuccessful, because he could not write quite fast enough to take down all that was said.

Even more mature students often reveal very meager knowledge of methods of study. I once had a class of some thirty persons, most of whom were men twenty-five to thirty-five years of age, who were college graduates and experienced teachers. One day I asked them, "When has a book been read properly?" The first reply came from a state university graduate and school superintendent, in the words, " One has read a book properly when one understands what is in it." Most of the others assented to this answer. But when they were asked, " Is a person under any obligations to judge the worth of the thought?" they divided, some saying yes, others no. Then other questions arose, and the class as a whole soon appeared to be quite at sea as to the proper method of reading books. Perhaps the most interesting thing was the fact that they seemed never to have thought seriously about the matter.

Fortunately Dr. Earhart has not overlooked teachers' methods of study in her investigations. In a questionnaire that was filled out by 165 teachers, the latter were requested to state the principal things that ought to be done in "thinking about a lesson." This was practically the same test as was given to the 842 children before mentioned. While at least twenty different things were named by these teachers, the most frequent one was, "Finding the most important points." 1 Yet only fifty-five out of the 165 included even this. Only twenty-five, as Dr. Earhart says, "felt, keenly enough to mention it, the necessity of finding the main thought or problem." Forty admitted that they memorized more often than they did anything else in their studying. Strange to say, a larger percentage of children than of teachers mentioned finding the main thought, and finding the more important facts, as two factors in mastering a lesson. Water sometimes appears to rise higher than its source.

About two-thirds of these 165 teachers 2 declared that they had never received any systematic instruction about how to study, and more than half of the remainder stated that they were taught to memorize in studying. The number who had given any careful instruction on proper methods of study to their own pupils was insignificant. Yet these 165 teachers had had unusual training on the whole, and most of them had taught several years in elementary schools. If teachers are so poorly informed, and if they are doing so little to instruct their pupils on this subject, how can the latter be expected to know how to study ?

1 Ibid., Chapter 5. 2 Ibid., Chapter 5.

IMPROPER METHODS 9

The prevailing definition of study gives further proof of a very meager notion in regard to it. Frequently during the last few years I have obtained from The presidents in college, as well as from teachers, defljd&ro of brief statements of their idea of study. Fully itad y | nine out of every ten have given memorizing as its nearest synonym.

It is true that teachers now and then insist that studying should consist of thinking. They even send children to their seats with the direction to "think, think hard." But that does not usually signify much. A certain college student, when urged to spend not less than an hour and a half on each lesson, replied, "What would I do after the first twenty minutes ?" His idea evidently was that he could read each lesson through and memorize its substance in that time. What more remained to be done ? Very few teachers, I find, are fluent in answering his question. In practice, memorizing constitutes much the greater part of study.

The very name recitation suggests this fact. If the school periods are to be spent in reciting, or reproducing, what has been learned, the work of preparation very naturally consists in storing the memory with the facts that are to be required. Thinking periods, as a substitute name for recitation periods, suggests a radical change, both in our employment of school time and in our method of preparing lessons. We are not yet prepared for any such change of name.

Consider finally the literature treating of study. Certainly there has never been a period when there was a more general interest in education than during the last twenty years, and the progress that has been y made in that time is remarkable. Our study of the Thelitera- social view-point, of child nature, of apperwhh metlwf ce pti° n > interest, induction, deduction, corof itudy. relation, etc., has been rapidly revolutionizing the school, securing a much more sympathetic government of young people, a new curriculum, and far more effective methods of instruction. In consequence, the injuries inflicted by the school are fewer and less often fatal than formerly, while the benefits are more numerous and more vital. But, in the vast quantity of valuable educational literature that has been published, careful searching reveals only two books in English, and none in German, on the "Art of Study." Even these two are ordinary books on teaching, with an extraordinary title.

The subject of memorizing has been well treated in some of our psychologies, and has received attention in a few of the more recent works on method. Various other problems pertaining to study have also, of course, been considered more or less, in the past, in books on method, in rhetorics, and in discussions of selection of reading matter. In addition, there are a few short but notable essays on study. There have been practically, however, only two books that treat mainly of this subject, — the two small volumes by Dr. Earhart, already mentioned, which have been very recently published. In the main, the thoughts on this general subject that have got into print have found expression merely as incidents in the treatment of other themes — coming, strange to say, largely from men outside the teaching profession — and are contained in scattered and forgotten sources.

IMPROPER METHODS 11

Thus it is evident not only that children and teachers are little acquainted with proper methods of study, but that even sources of information on the subject are strangely lacking.

The seriousness of such neglect is not to be overestimated. Wrong methods of study, involving much unnecessary friction, prevent enjoyment of Serfonmeii school. This want of enjoyment results in °' tW8 e?11, much dawdling of time, a meager quantity of knowledge, and a desire to quit school at the first opportunity. The girl who adopted the muscular method of learning history was reasonably bright. But she had to study very "hard " ; the results achieved in the way of marks often brought tears; and, although she attended the high school several years, she never finished the course. It should not be forgotten that most of those who stop school in the elementary grades leave simply because they want to, not because they must.

Want of enjoyment of school is likely to result, further, in distaste for intellectual employment in general. Yet we know that any person who amounts to much must do considerable thinking, and must even take pleasure in it. Bad methods of study, therefore, easily become a serious factor in adult life, acting as a great barrier to one's growth and general usefulness.

Chapter II The Nature Of Study, And Its Principal Factors

Our physical movements ordinarily take place in response to a need of some sort. For instance, a person How the wishing to reach a certain point, to play a foTIudy certain game, or to lay the foundations for a arifl6Sa house, makes such movements as are necessary to accomplish the purpose desired. Even mere physical exercise grows out of a more or less specific feeling of need.

The mental activity called study is likewise called forth in response to specific needs. The Eskimo, for example, compelled to find shelter and having only blocks of ice with which to build, ingeniously contrives an ice hut. For the sake of obtaining raw materials he studies the habits of the few wild animals about him, and out of these materials he manages by much invention to secure food, clothing, and implements.

We ourselves, having a vastly greater variety of

materials at hand, and also vastly more ideas and ideals,

are much more dependent upon thinking and study.

But, as in the case of the Eskimo, this thinking and

study arises out of actual conditions, and from specific

wants. It may be that we must contrive ways of earning

more money; or that the arguments for protective tariff

seem too inconsistent for comfort; or that the reports

about some of our friends alarm us. The occasions

that call forth thought are infinite in number and kind.

But the essential fact is that study does not normally take place except under the stimulus or spur of particular conditions, and of conditions, too, that are Unsatisfactory.

It does not take place even then unless we become conscious of the strained situation, of the want of harmony between what is and what might be. For ages malarial fever was accepted as a visitation by Divine Providence, or as a natural inconvenience, like bad weather. People were not disturbed by lack of harmony between what actually was and what might be, because they did not conceive the possibility of preventing the disease. Accordingly they took it as a matter of course, and made no study of its cause. Very recently, on the other hand, people have become conscious of the possibility of exterminating malaria. The imagined state has made the real one more and more intolerable; and, as this feeling of dissatisfaction has grown more acute, study of the cause of the disease has grown more intense, until it has finally been discovered. Thus a lively consciousness of the unsatisfactoriness of a situation is the necessary prerequisite to its investigation; it furnishes the motive for it.

It has ever been so in the history of evolution. Study f has not taken place without stimulus or motive. It has always had the practical task of lifting us out of . our difficulties, either material or spiritual, and placing us on our feet. In this way it has been merely an instrument — though a most important one — in securing our proper adjustment or adaptation to our environment. 1

1 For discussion of this subject, see Studies in Logical Theory % by John Dewey. See, also, Systematic Study in Elementary Schools* By Dr. Iida B. Earhart, Chapters 1 and 2.

After we have become acutely conscious of a misfit somewhere in our experience, the actual study done to Th TOiatr right it varies indefinitely with the individual. •f rMponia The savage follows a hit-and-miss method of maud for investigation, and really makes his advances

y * by happy guesses rather than by close application. Charles Lamb's Dissertation on Roast Pig furnishes a typical example of such accidents.

The average civilized man of the present does only a little better. How seldom, for instance, is the diet prescribed for a dyspeptic — whether by himself or by a physician — the result of any intelligent study ! The true scientist, however, goes at his task in a careful and systematic way. Recall, for instance, how the cause of yellow fever has been discovered. For years people had attributed the disease to invisible particles which they called " fomites." These were supposed to be given off by the sick, and spread by means of their clothing and other articles used by them. Investigation caused this theory to be abandoned. Then, since Dr. J. C. Nott of Mobile had suggested, in 1848, that the fever might be carried by the mosquito, and Dr. C. J. Finlay of Havana had declared, in 1881, that a mosquito of a certain kind would carry the fever from one patient to another, this variety of mosquito was assumed by Dr. Walter Reed, in 1900, to be the source of the disease, and was subjected to very close investigation by him. Several men voluntarily received its bite and contracted the fever. Soon, enough cases were collected to establish the probable correctness of the assumption. The remedy suggested — the utter destruction of this particular kind of mosquito, including l ■.■'UMfaBfl^HfeihUid.

its eggs and larvae — was so efficacious in combating the disease in Havana in 1901, and in New Orleans in 1905, that the theory is now considered established. Thus systematic study has relieved us of one of the most dreaded diseases to which mankind has been subject.

* An extensive study, like this investigation, into the cause of yellow fever employs induction very plainly. It also employs deduction extensively, inas- f u uAa ^ much as hypotheses that have been reached feoton in more or less inductively have to be widely y * applied and tested, and further conclusions have to be drawn from them. Such a study, therefore, involving both induction and deduction and their numerous short cuts, contains the essential factors common to the investigation of other topics, or to study in general; for different subjects cannot vary greatly when it comes to the general method of their attack. An analysis, therefore, which reveals the principal factors in this study is likely to bring to light the main factors of study in general.

If the search for the cause of yellow fever were traced more fully, one striking feature discovered would be the fact that the investigation was never

"*" - ' j Vltm And

aimless. The need of unraveling the mystery ^ g f was often very pressing, for we have had S^J^ three great epidemics of yellow fever in our »<>*<* k own country since 1790, and scientists have been eager to apply themselves to the problem. Yet a : specific purpose, in the form of a definite hypothesis of some sort, was felt to be necessary before the study could proceed intelligently.

Thus, during the epidemic of 1793, the contagiousness of the disease was debated. Then the theory of "fomites" arose, and underwent investigation. Finally, the spread of the disease through the mosquito was proposed for the solution. And while books of reference were examined and new observations were collected in great number, such work was not undertaken by the investigators primarily for the sake of increasing their general knowledge, but with reference to the particular issue at hand.

The important question now is, Is this, in general, the way in which the ordinary student should work? Of course, he is much less mature than the scientist, and the results that he achieves may have no social value, in comparison. Yet, should his method be the same ? At least, should his study likewise be under the guidance of specific purposes, so that these would direct and limit his reading, observation, and independent thinking ? Or would that be too narrow, indeed, exactly the wrong way ? And, instead of limiting himself to a collection of such facts as help to answer the few problems that he might be able to set up, should he be unmindful of particular problems? Should he ' rather be a collector of facts at large, endeavoring to develop an interest in whatever is true, simply because it is true? Here are two quite different methods of study suggested. Probably the latter is by far the more common one among immature students. Yet the former is the one that, in the main, will be advocated in this book as a factor of serious study.

Dr. Reed in this case went far beyond the discoveries of previous investigators. Not only did he conceive new tests for old hypotheses, but he posited new hypotheses, as well as collected the data that would prove or disprove them. Thus, while he no 2. The rapdoubt made much use of previous facts, Jf^JgS? he went far beyond that and succeeded in SJJJJTJJ enlarging the confines of knowledge. That rtttd y« is a task that can be accomplished only by the most mature and gifted of men.

The ordinary scholar must also be a collector of facts. But he must be content to be a receiver rather than a contributor of knowledge; that is, he must occupy himself mainly with the ideas of other persons, as presented in books or lectures or conversation. Even when he takes up the study of nature, or any other field, at first hand, he is generally under the guidance of a teacher or some text.

Now, how much, if anything, must he add to what is directly presented to him by others ? To what extent must he be a producer in that sense ? Are authors, at the best, capable only of suggesting their thought, leaving much that is incomplete and even hidden from view ? And must the student do much supplementing, even much digging, or severe thinking of his own, in order to get at their meaning ? Or, do authors — at least the greatest of them — say most, or all, that they wish, and make their meaning plain ? And is it, accordingly, the duty of the student merely to follow their presentation without enlarging upon it greatly?

The view will hereafter be maintained that any good author leaves much of such work for the student to do. Any poor author certainly leaves much more.

The scientist would easily lose his way among the many facts that he gathers for examination, did he not carefully select and bring them into order. He arranges 8. The or- them in groups according to their relations,

ganiiation of • • * i_ •

foots ool- recognizing a few as having supreme lmtaW^faotor P ortance > subordinating many others to la etudy. these, and casting aside many more because of their insignificance. This all constitutes a large part of his study.

What duty has the less mature student in regard to organization ? Should the statements that he receives be put into order by him ? Are some to be selected as vital, others to be grouped under these, and still others to be slighted or even entirely omitted from consideration, because of their insignificance? And is he to determine all this for himself, remembering that thorough study requires the neglect of some things as well as the emphasis of others ? Or do all facts have much the same value, so that they should receive about equal attention, as is the case with the multiplication tables? And, instead of being grouped according to relations and relative values, should they be studied, one at a time, in the order in which they are presented, with the idea that a topic is mastered when each single statement upon it is understood ? Or, if not this, has the reliable author at least already attended to this whole matter, making the various relations of facts to one another and their relative values so clear that the student has little work to do but to follow the printed statement ? Is it even highly unsafe for the latter to assume the responsibility of judging relative values? And would the neglect or skipping of many supposedly little things be more likely to result in careless, slipshod work than in thoroughness ?

The scientist in charge of the above-mentioned investigation was, ne doubt, a modest man. Yet he saw fit to question the old assumption that yellow fever was spread by invisible particles called lng of the "fomites." Indeed, he had the boldness to rtatementi, disprove it. Then he disproved, also, the faoJoH^* 11 assumption that the fever was contagious by afod 7* contact. After that he set out to test a hypothesis of his own. His attitude toward the results of former investigations was thus skeptically critical. Every proposition was to be questioned, and the evidence of facts, rather than personal authority or the authority of time, was the sole final test of validity.

What should be the attitude of the young student toward the authorities that he studies? Certainly authors are, as a rule, more mature and far better informed upon the subjects that they discuss than he, otherwise he would not be pursuing them. Are they still so prone to error that he should be critical toward them ? At any rate, should he set himself up as their judge; at times condemning some of their statements outright, or accepting them only in part, — and thus maintain independent views ? Or would that be the height of presumption on his part? While it is true that all authors are liable to error, are they much less liable to it in their chosen fields than he, and can he more safely trust them than himself ? And should he, therefore, being a learner, adopt a docile, passive attitude, and accept whatever statements are presented ? Or, finally, is neither of these attitudes correct ? Instead of either condemning or accepting authors, is it his duty merely to understand and remember what they say ?