The possibility of a science of education

Contents

Chapter Page

I. Introduction 1

(а) Statement of the Problem.

Introduction

Can there be a science of education as there is a science of mathematics, of physics, of medicine, or of ethics ; are there educational facts or principles capable of discovery and systematization which are so fundamental, universal and important as to differentiate educational science from every other ; and, further, is a study of such educational science of service to the educator by furnishing him with instruments of insight which will be valuable in the determination of the true purpose of education and of ways and means to its attainment 1 This, in brief, is the problem submitted for investigation.

No argument is necessary to demonstrate the important practical bearing of the problem proposed. Its solution affects in a most profound and vital way every phase of educational procedure. More especially is this true in regard to the preparation of teachers. If the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, the so-called professional training of teachers is “a delusion and a snare,” and had better be dispensed with. On the other hand, if an affirmative answer should be given to these questions every teacher, from the kindergarten to the university, would be rendered more efficient by a certain quantum of a suitable kind of preliminary professional training.

The problem is an old and familiar one and has in some form or other received the attention of scholars and practical men from the earliest times.

i

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

With the modern scientific movement the subject has naturally come prominently into the foreground of public consciousness, and has received extended and scholarly treatment at the hands of many eminent philosophers and scientists.

The view advocated by many of these writers — especially by university men — is, in brief, that science being abstract and universal, and the child concrete and individual, there can be no science of education properly so called ; and, further, that as knowledge, natural aptitude and successful experience are the prime requisites of the successful teacher, pedagogical training is unnecessary and may do more harm than good.

Public sentiment, however, which history has proved to be at times more sane than current philosophy, has persisted in a constantly-increasing demand for more thorough and continued professional training on the part of the teacher.*

The increased attention given to the subject during recent years in all civilized countries is phenomenal, and would seem to indicate an almost universal sentiment in favor of the importance of, and necessity for, such training; e.g., in the Province of Ontario, Canada, the annual government grant for teachers’ salaries and other expenditure, not including buildings, in such professional schools was in 1870, $17,169.74; in 1890, $52,532.00; in 1900, $74,518.00.

The demand for professional training, formerly confined almost exclusively to the elementary school, has recently

*It must be admitted, however, that there are evidences to show that in many, perhaps the majority of, cases citizens have no very clearly -defined reasons to assign for this additional burden of taxation, and, in cases where the selection of a trained instead of an untrained teacher involves personal financial loss or the sacrifice of private interests political or otherwise, the results are often such as to indicate that sentiment in favor of professional training has not become sufficiently ingrained to form a strong motive for action. As an example we may cite the conditions which obtain in the State of Illinois. In the report of the State Superintendent of Education (June, 1901) we find (p. 15) that Illinois has two normal universities and two normal schools with a total government expenditure of $293,398.48, and yet that (p. 43) “not one teacher in five has been either liberally educated or trained in a state normal school.” The report also shows (p. 3) that the lowest salary paid for a male teacher is $12.50 per month, and for a female teacher $8.00 per month.

Introduction.

made itself felt in connection with the high school, and in compliance with this demand many universities have established departments of education.

In the educational world, as along other lines of human activity, the necessity for co-operation is being realized as never before. The university, the secondary and the elementary schools are beginning to see that the interests of each are bound up in, and dependent upon, the success of the others. The low estimate of university training formerly entertained by many teachers of elementary schools is rapidly giving place to a feeling of true appreciation, while, at the opposite pole, ignorance of the elementary school system of one’s country is not now considered a sine qua non for scholarly reputation.

In no case is this change of attitude from one of disregard to one of sympathetic and attentive consideration more evident than in the interest shown by university men in the problem here under discussion.

With a view to determine in a general way the opinion held by university professors regarding the value of professional training for teachers I prepared a circular and sent it to presidents and heads of departments of American universities considered to be most representative. Sixty-three replies were received. Of these nine were from presidents of universities, arid with only four exceptions the remainder were from heads of departments. Thirteen replies were from professors of the department of philosophy, eleven from natural science, eight from classics, five from mathematics, four from English, six from teaching and seven from other departments. The replies from professors of teaching departments are not included in this report.*

The following is a summary of questions submitted and replies received : —

* For statements of views held by professors in teaching department see report of the committee on “The Certification of College and University Graduates as Teachers in the Public Schools” in The School Review, June, 1899, The University of Chicago

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

1. Do you consider that the present system of professional

training, e.g ., Normal Schools or University Department of Pedagogy, is desirable for teachers in

(a) Elementary Schools ? Affirmative answers, 28 ; nega-

tive, 3.

( b ) Secondary Schools 1 Affirmative answers, 28 ; nega-

tive, 9.

(c) Universities'? Affirmative answers, 20; negative, 17.

2. Do you consider that a system of Professional training

could be devised which would be desirable for teachers in

(a) Elementary Schools ? Affirmative answers, 43 ; nega-

tive, 3.

(b) Secondary Schools ? Affirmative answers, 43 ; nega-

tive, 3.

(c) Universities'? Affirmative answers, 31; negative, 11.

3. Do you think it possible to place the training of teachers

upon a Scientific Basis 1 Affirmative views, 27 ; negative, 2.

Many of those who answer in the affirmative point out that they do so with the reservation that in the first question reference is to the better type of existing training-schools, and in the third to a proper interpretation of the word “ scientific.”

Those who do not answer the categorical questions (and many who do reply to them) have been so good as to add written statements of their views on the general topic, and from these statements the following summary is made :

Forty-five out of fifty-seven favor the professional training of teachers. Of these a number would confine the training to a certain class, e.g., teachers of elementary schools, and would reduce the time and content of the course to a minimum. One is opposed to all such training. Twenty-six emphasize knowledge of the subject to be taught, as an important, if not the most important, factor to be considered in a teacher’s

Introduction.

preparation. Thirteen emphasize natural aptitude, vigorous personality, etc., as important factors. Five emphasize study under an able and inspiring teacher, as invaluable in such preparation. Four award the palm to successful experience. Twenty-two express the opinion that in many existing professional training-schools there is a tendency to depreciate one or more of the above-mentioned elements — knowledge, aptitude, observation, experience — and to substitute pedagogical methods as an equivalent. Eleven hold the view that professional training is most important for elementary school teachers, and that its value uniformly decreases as we ascend to higher levels in the system, until for university teachers it is of little or no value.

That so many of our ablest thinkers in the fields of science, literature and art, should have taken time to turn aside from their important duties, to express themselves so fully on the subject at issue will, I am sure, be a source of inspiration to those who, in humbler spheres, are endeavoring to render their teaching more efficient. That there should be such unanimity of opinion that method has been exalted at the expense of knowledge would seem to indicate that some training-schools, at least, have not been true to the highest ideals. It is also worthy of note that over ninety per cent, of those who replied, favor some form of professional training, although there is great diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the training which should be given.

As will be seen, nearly one half of those from whom replies have been received do not feel themselves prepared to express any opinion regarding the possibility of placing the training of teachers upon a scientific basis, while those who do reply in the affirmative do so with reservations differing widely in character.

On page 119 and subsequent pages will be found quotations from the answers received, incorporating the arguments pro

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

and con. Space does not admit of a complete statement of all the replies.

A consideration of the facts thus far referred to seems to suggest the need of further investigation of the problem.

In the following pages I have endeavored to establish the thesis that a science of education is possible. It will be observed that throughout the argument constant emphasis has also been placed upon the importance of the professional training of teachers. This seeming dual treatment is the logical outgrowth of the dynamic conception (subsequently explained) upon which the argument is based, a conception which holds that the relation of theory and practice is of such an intimate nature that neither can be divorced from the other. Further, this conception makes the criterion of the possibility of educational science to consist in its capacity to furnish insight in educational procedure, and I have, therefore, tried to show by somewhat extended and definite illustrations, ways in which such insight can be furnished.

In the attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solution regarding the problem proposed, I am not unmindful of the high character of the sources of the opinions from which I am obliged to differ. I am convinced that these opinions would have been greatly modified had their authors had time and opportunity to observe the improvement which invariably takes place in the teaching power of those who are being professionally trained in a truly scientific way.

Two articles on the subject of “Pedagogy as a Science” may be said to have become classical authorities owing to the philosophical character of the treatment and the eminence of the authors. The first is by Professor Dilthey, “Ueber die Moglichkeit einer allgemeingiltigen pedagogischen Wissenchaften,” 1888, pp. 807-832. The second is by Professor Poyce, “Is there a Science of Education?” Educational Review , 1891, pp. 15-121. Professor Poyce reviews Dr. Dil-

Introduction.

they’s article and expresses himself as substantially in accord with the views therein enunciated. Both writers conclude that there can be no science of education properly so called, but that valuable training may be afforded by a study of the history of education, biological science, etc.

The following quotations may serve to indicate the line of argument followed in Professor Royce’s article :

“Scientific pedagogy, far from telling the teacher finally and completely just what human nature is and must be and just what to do with it, will be limited to pointing out what does, on the whole, tend toward good order and toward the organization of impulses into character. This is the whole province of pedagogy as a general science. Its applications to the conditions of a particular time, nation, family and child, will be a matter of art not of science. And, therefore, no concrete, educational questions can be solved in terms of a universally valid science. Such questions will always contain elements of uncertainty, will always require the practical skill of the individual educator and will always receive answers that will vary with time and occasion.” “Universally valid your ‘system’ never can be; therefore, hold it not as a system. But universally significant your scientific insight may become to you, if you once possess it, and can bear in mind that it is after all abstract, and yet noteworthy as an abstraction. Teachers, then, do need a scientific training for their calling. Instinct, un chastened by science, is blindly self-confident, and when it goes astray its fall from grace is irreparable ; its very innocence then proves its doom. Teachers who know nothing of the reflective aspects of their calling, who do not try to comprehend as well as to love their pupils, who despise science because it cannot take the place of devotion and of instinct, may indeed be successful, and, in any case, their state, so long as by chance they do not go far astray, is vastly better than the present state of those pedants who have heard of modern science, of nerve cells, and of apperception, and who forthwith have developed or copied some hundreds of systematic principles of ‘ Pedagogical Method.’ ”

With most of the statements in the articles referred to, and in the subsequent writings of those who take a similar negative view — e.g ., in replies quoted p. 119 — I heartily agree, but while hesitating to differ from such eminent authorities I beg to object to the definition of science upon which the arguments seem to have been based and to the conclusions deduced there-

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

from. The position which I attempt to defend is that such limited static view of science is incorrect and that the conclusions drawn from the application of such a view to education are untenable.

1st. Science is not so much a systematized body of knowledge, “ universally valid ” and finally fixed, as it is an accepted instrument of insight to furnish control over future experience. Nor are the principles of educational science rules to be “copied from a book” and immediately applied by the teacher without reference to the particular conditions of the “ time, nation, family and child.”

Educational theory is sometimes thus conceived as something over and above and isolated from individual experience, a sort of educational tourist guidebook which when once memorized will enable the teacher, without individual appreciation, deliberation or selection, to locate and place under the proper category all the phenomena of the classroom, to advance with copyrighted, ready-reckoner methods which will cover much ground in little time, and secure magnificent examination results; a pedagogical doctor-book, with rules to enable one to diagnose with certainty every disease and apply the only possible prescription for each particular case of difficulty as it arises.

I shall endeavor to show that as fact and law are but two aspects of the same operation, educational theory cannot thus be sundered from educational practice without becoming static, formal, lifeless. Educational theory is not so much a reflective and systematic account of things, a systematized body of knowledge, as it is an idea of something to be done. There is no such thing as education in general. It is always this particular individual who has to be considered and dealt with under these conditions at this present moment. There is always an activity possible to this learner which, as to form and content, is preferable to any other of the countless courses

Introduction.

of action open to choice. The problem is always how to reorganize this present experience in the best possible way. Our desire is to know this specific case in all its concreteness, to investigate, analyze, clarify, relate it, not that we may find some abstract rule under which it may be brought, some till into which it may be pigeon-holed, some mold in which it may be cast, but that we may see what this experience really is, that we may recognize the relationships in hand and respond to the demands of these relationships.

Educational theory is neither more nor less than educational insight, an analytic perception of the conditions and relations involved in a particular case, and accordingly the criterion of value of a course of professional training must always be the degree in which it enables the teacher to possess such clearer vision for the reconstruction of each new breakdown in experience.

2nd. Further, it is often urged that education is wholly an art, consisting of the application of a number of other sciences — biology, psychology, ethics, sociology, etc., and that if the teacher has attained a knowledge of these cognate sciences he has simply to apply this knowledge when he comes to teach. The view taken in the following pages is that education is an independent science, with phenomena and laws peculiar to itself, and that it may properly be considered to depend upon other sciences only in such a sense as chemical science may be said to depend upon mathematics.

Educational science finds its focus in its endeavor to gain control of the educational process. It views from this focal standpoint everything in proper perspective. It casts its tentacles into the sea of all auxiliary science, literature and art, and appropriates and assimilates that which is best fitted for its special requirements. It possesses a technique entirely different from that of any other science, a technique which can be mastered in the best way only when the teacher in training

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

studies it from a distinctly educational standpoint, and under conditions which furnish opportunities both for observation and for practice.

3rd. Again, the question of the advisability of the professional preparation of teachers is frequently discussed as though it were an alternative one in which professional training (usually of the objectionable type to which allusion has been made), on the one hand, is arrayed against a combination of knowledge, natural aptitude and successful experience, on the other. My contention is that this is not a correct or adequate statement of the problem, but that the real question at issue is to what extent, if any, will the teacher who possesses these preliminary essentials of knowledge, devotion, instinct, etc., be benefited by professional training conducted in a scholarly spirit and accompanied by actual contact with children.

I shall not attempt to defend the views which have been assailed in the cases referred to, but shall endeavor to show that in regard to each the attack has been made upon an empty fortress. Nor do I claim that present systems of training are perfect. It is admitted that much that has been written under the guise of educational science is anything but scientific, that too large a portion of what has been proposed as the final word on educational method is valuable only as a warning of method not to be followed, and that it is possible for a certain type of student to receive so-called professional training without gaining that culture which is always accompanied by the grace of humility.

There are graduates of teachers’ training-schools for whom the clock of development in scholarship and culture stopped on the day when they received their diplomas. They never contribute anything to the cause of educational advance and the value of their schoolroom work varies inversely as the length of their experience. On the other hand, there are eminent university men who have never attended any institu-

Introduction.

tion for pedagogical training, who nevertheless in addition to the study and research work which have made them famous in their special departments have familiarized themselves with the best educational literature and have thought profoundly on educational subjects. Their lectures are models as regards matter and method and their utterances on educational questions have deservedly ranked them as leaders in true educational reform. The assertion that the former are trained teachers, and the latter untrained, is too absurd to be taken seriously. A specialist is not one who “ says that he is,” nor yet one who has certificates to show that he ought to be, but rather one whose actions when put to the test, demonstrate conclusively that he is master of the situation.

Perfection consists not in “ a having and a resting,” but in “a growing and a becoming.” The difficulty of professional training consists not so much in developing a teacher who does good work at the beginning as in training him in such a manner that, possessing elements of growth, he may continue to increase in efficiency from year to year.

If a course of training has nothing to offer but a number of shibboleths and cut-and-dried methods of doing things, based on no other authority than that someone says they have worked fairly well in the past, it will be of little benefit to the student. On the other hand, if during a professional training course the teacher gains an insight which will enable him to originate his own methods, to reconstruct his own experience at every step so as to react in the best possible way, and also at the same time gains an impulse for further development, such training will be valuable from the standpoints of knowledge, discipline and culture, his efficiency as a teacher will be increased many times over, and what might have proved “the sorriest of trades ” will become “the noblest of professions.”

While admitting the imperfection of prevailing educational systems it may not be out of place to observe that charges

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

similar to the foregoing may be laid at the door of every other science or profession. The most ardent advocates of professional training for teachers are foremost in the demand for the correction of existing evils, and it is probable that all who have observed the trend of events will admit that great reforms are being accomplished. It is hoped that the following argument may prove sufficiently unprejudiced and practical to serve in some way in the furtherance of such advance :

General Preliminary Statement. — In order to clear the ground for future discussion, without attempting to define precisely the necessary qualifications of the teacher or the course of study most appropriate for training-schools, the following are suggested as general working hypotheses : —

I. Minimum Teaching Qualifications.

(a) That elementary school teachers possess a scholarship

rank equivalent to that of the first year in our best universities, and high-school teachers to that of the A.B. degree.

( b ) That in addition to the foregoing academic qualification

(before receiving a permanent certificate to teach) two years of professional preparation be demanded, of which at least one year be spent in a training-school (normal school, college or university) and the remaining time devoted to teaching under competent supervision.

II. Course of Study in Training-School.

(a) Philosophical investigation of the general problem of

education.

(b) History of education — comparative study of school sys-

tems.

(c) The following subjects studied from the standpoint of

education :

1. History of civilization.

2. Ethics, sociology, political science.

3. Psychology (genetic), child-study, biology, physiology.

Introduction .

(d) School organization and supervision, school law.

( e ) Study of educational classics.

(/) Methodology and didactics ; review of subjects to be taught.

(g) Study of subjects necessary for the teacher but not pre-

viously learned ; e.g., hygiene.

(h) Observation and teaching in practice school.

(i) Experimentation in educational laboratory school.

Chapter II. The Empirical Objection

As has already been suggested the arguments of those who answer our questions regarding the possibility of a science of education in the negative, naturally fall under two heads : (1) That from the inherent nature of science and of education no science of education is possible. (2) That on the side of experience the attempt to give professional training to teachers is an attempt to substitute such training for what is more important and valuable, an attempt which is, therefore, certain to be disastrous to the highest efficiency.

I hope that in the discussion of the first objection, which is fundamental, the second, which is a development from it, will largely disappear. However, as the latter, which may be called the empirical form of objection, is the one which is usually first presented I shall refer briefly to several popular criticisms concerning it before proceeding to the main discussion of the first objection, which will be taken in succeeding chapters.*

1st. When a plea is made for the professional training of teachers it is sometimes urged in opposition that such a plea is based upon a desire to give to teaching a standing — social and scientific — to which in the very nature of things it is not entitled, that there is not, and never can be, a separate profession of teaching.

If the objection were simply one of social hierarchy it need not cause special concern in this democratic age. But the

*See article on “The Study of Education,” by Prof. Findlay, Government Educational Report , London, Eng., Vol. II, p. 338.

The Empirical Objection.

objection has a much more important bearing, for this view that “ anybody can teach school, that no professional preparation is necessary, that if a person can show that he has more knowledge than those to be taught it is quite safe to turn him loose upon a class,” when applied in educational affairs produces two disastrous results.

(a) It reduces the remuneration for teaching to the level of that for unskilled labor. Indeed, it reaches a much lower limit, especially in primary work, where according to the opinion of many advocates of this theory “ the knowledge to be poured in is easily gained and the hours are fewer than those for a domestic servant.” The reference on page 2 to the case where in a comparatively wealthy community the teacher is paid only eight dollars a month is an illustration of this fact.

( b ) It places incompetent teachers in the schools. As I shall endeavor to establish, in every grade of educational work from the kindergarten to the university, and more particularly on the elementary levels, there is a certain scientific attitude which is necessary for highest educational achievement, and which cannot be gained without careful and long, continued preparation on the part of the teacher. This is an age of specialists, and the best men are not likely to enter or continue in a work where, according to accepted public sentiment, there are no fields for research nor any criteria for advancement, and where the salaries are insufficient to provide even the simplest necessities of life. Such deflection is more apparent in the case of elementary schools, but cannot fail to be felt in other lines of educational work as well. The whole tendency of the objection, is, therefore, to debar teaching from attaining the high standard of efficiency which it might otherwise reach, by preventing from engaging therein any but those of mediocre ability who could not succeed in other more remunerative employments.

The Possibility of a Science of Education.

The objection, to the possibility of raising teaching to the status of a profession often arises from an entirely different standpoint, however (a scholarly one), when it is argued that “a university man who has received a liberal education is ipso facto qualified to enter upon other careers in life.” In so far as this means that as a preparation for life university scholarship and culture are invaluable the statement is undoubtedly true. It is worthy of notice that this argument was used against the proposal to demand professional preparation for law and for medicine, and has been abandoned in these cases as it will eventually be as regards teaching. The recent union of the secondary teachers of England in the formation of a profession, the resolutions of the Cambridge Conference in favor of the training of teachers, and the adoption of professional training of teachers by the governments of the most advanced nations, e.g ., Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States of America, are indications that this objection is now generally regarded as practically untenable.

2nd. The objection is sometimes made “ that professionally-trained teachers are little or no better than untrained, that they are apt to be mechanical and unpractical, and to be lacking in originality and initiative.” Such a statement can scarcely be verified or disproved by experiment. The facts, however, that the testimony of school supervisors is almost entirely against the objection, and that public sentiment, which does not continue to invest money for fads after they have been put to actual test for many years, is steadily giving more attention to the subject and support to such training, would seem to cast doubt upon the general accuracy of the statement.

The failure of a professionally-trained teacher is usually traceable either to a lack of aptitude or of preparation on entering the training-school, or to the inadequacy of the training given therein. That such failure sometimes does occur

The Empirical Objection.

emphasizes the fact that one of the duties of such a school is to see that those who are not naturally fitted for teaching, or who are illiterate or unworthy, are there directed into more appropriate lines of work.

3rd. The main objection made by scholarly men against professional training is, however, the one which in different forms appears so often in the replies received (p. 119), viz., “that if we demand ' professional training the knowledge and culture standard of teachers will be lowered.” In reply the following points are submitted as worthy of consideration : —