The art of study

Front matter

Chap. Copyright No....

. HCnG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Preface

The ultimate object of this book is to place the Art of Study as a tool or instrument in the hands of pupils and students in schools. But as this object can be reached only by way of the teachers, the book is primarily addressed to them, and to students of the science and the art of teaching. It is, therefore, plainly necessary in the first place to demonstrate the relations that should exist between the pupil and the teacher in the school, and then to present practical methods by which the teacher may establish and maintain such relations. Only through these means can the grand end be reached. The book, it will be seen, proposes a partial readjustment of the relations existing between the pupil and the teacher. In other words, it proposes to effect a partial shifting of the center of gravity in the school, by making the pupil the center of the system and placing the teacher in his proper orbit.

It would have been easy greatly to multiply the parallel readings accompanying the chapters, but my observation is that in such a case a small but well-chosen bibliography is better than a large one.

B. A. HINSDALE.

Thk University of Michigan

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Learning and Teaching 7

II. Study and its Relations to Learning and Teaching 14

Chapter I. Learning And Teaching

One of the most valuable arts that a boy or a girl, a young man or a young woman, can learn is the art of ,, , , study. It is also an art that is nowhere ad-

Valtte of -^

the Art of equately taught. It receives little conscious ^* attention on the part of either teacher or pupil

in the school, and outside the school it is almost wholly neglected. These facts furnish the reason for the preparation and publication of this book, which deals with the leading features of this art.

In entering upon the subject, the first thing that demands attention is, obviously, to bound and describe the territory that the book will cultivate. To this Work. ^^ ^^is will require two or three brief chapters. We must begin with learning, which is the primary activity of the school, and with teaching, which is so closely connected with learning as almost to form a part of it.

The science and the art of teaching assume that there is a duality of existence, — the mind and its environment, or the mind and the world. Philosophers sometimes deny that this duaHty exists in reality, and affirm that there is only one existence, of which mind liiSlf^^^ and the world are only different phases. But this is a metaphysical, not a pedagogical, question. Pedagogy starts with the apparent duality of existence, and never stops to inquire whether it is real or not. The problem of learning, or mental growth, then, involves the following elements :

I. The mind, which is self-active and capable of learn- ^^^ ing or of growing by its own activity.

Processor 2. Objects of knowledge or things capable earning. ^^ being known. These are of various kinds, as natural objects, the facts of human society, and the facts of the mind itself.

3. A connection between the mind and such an object, for there is no activity of the mind, and so no knowledge or mental growth, until the two are brought into due relation. Either the mind must go to the object of knowledge, or the object of knowledge must be brought to the mind.

At this point I should state that many objects of knowledge can be viewed in two ways — immediately and mediately. In the first case, the mind and the object are brought into immediate contact ; in the sphere of the senses the individual sees or hears or handles the object for himself, and is not dependent upon the eyes or ears or fingers of any other person. In the second case, the individual knows the object through some report or representation of it made by another, that is, through another's mediation. Thus, I have seen Detroit and Lake Erie and have a first-hand or immediate knowledge of them, but Constantinople and the Black Sea I have not seen, and so know them only mediately or at second-hand, that is,

LEARNING AND TEACHING. g

through language and pictures. In the case of first-hand

knowledge there are two terms in the series ; in

Second- the case of second-hand knowledge there are

hand three terms. This distinction of first and second-hand knowledge, while important in its own

place, does not, however, touch the core of the learning process. No matter whether we know the object directly or indirectly, the object itself or the representation of it must come into real relation with the mind. Thus our earliest knowledge originates in points of contact between our mental faculties and natural objects lying right about us in the world. Later we learn other objects through language and other forms of representation. We cannot explain the excitation or activity of the mind that is caused by bringing objects of knowledge into contact with it, any more than we can explain the excitation of the mouths of certain animals when particles of food come in their way ; but we are certain of the fact — the young mind puts out its tentacles, so to speak, and makes these objects of knowledge its own.

The word " learn " is supposed to come from a root meaning to go or to go over, and it means to gain knowledge or inform.ation in regard to some subject ; "ivearn" ^^ ascertain by inquiry, study, or investigation ; to fix in the mind ; to acquire understanding or skill. Activity is involved in the very root idea.

The root of the word " teach " means to show, and in the broadest sense it means to secure the desired relation between the mind and some appropriate educa- "Teach*^" tloii-material. It may be conceived of as leading the mind to knowledge, or as bringing knowledge to the mind. The teacher, accordingly, is merely a mediator between the knowing mind of the pupil, on the lO THE ART OF STUDY.

one hand, and the matter that is to be known, on the other. He brings the two together and so assists the mind in the generation of knowledge. Hence the definitions : "To teach is to cause to learn;" "Teaching is causing another to know ; " " Teaching involves the idea of knowledge obtained by an active mental process."

Learning and teaching, closely united as they are, are

not inseparable, because a man may learn without a

teacher in the school of self-cultivation. It

The Two not y^^ ^^j^ ^j^^^ j^^ ^^^j^ ^ ^^^^ ^j^^ learner is

Inseparable. •'

self-taught, or is his own teacher, but such use of the words, while consonant with the nature of the teaching process, is rather outside of the strict line of usage.

But while there may be learningwithout teaching, there can be no teaching without learning. Learning is not Relations merely the correlative idea of teaching, but is aid TeTch? ^"^ ^^ ^^^ constituent elements. Teaching ining. volves the idea of a pupil, and this pupil in a

state of mental activity that is produced by the teaching. When the pupil's mind ceases to respond to the substance presented, there is no teaching, no matter what the teacher may do. When learning ceases, teaching ceases. A teacher cannot teach a group of absolutely inert pupils any more than he can teach a group of stumps or a pile of bowlders. In fact, such children are not pupils at all. To appropriate the words of another writer, " Teaching is that part of the two-fold learning-process by which knowledge which is yet outside of the learner's mind, is directed toward that mind ; and learning is that part of the same two-fold process by which the knowledge taught is made the learner's own. Still, as before, however, there can be no teacher where there is not a learner ; although, on the other hand, there may be a learner where there is no one else than himself to be his teacher."

LEARNING AND TEACHING. II

So this writer insists that intelligent, purposeful teaching includes the idea of two persons, both of whom are Teaching active, and not merely active, but active over Implies the same lesson. This end may be secured by earn ng. ^|_^^ teacher hearing a recitation and commenting on it ; but this is not necessarily teaching, since the pupil may be merely exercising his memory, reciting what he has memorized verbally without understanding a word of it, and so is not taught anything because he does not learn anything. In such case he is not caused to know a single fact or truth that he did not know before, either from the lesson itself or from the teacher's hearing him recite ; nor does he learn anything by his teacher's wisest comments or explanations, no matter how valuable these may be in themselves, if he pays no attention to them or if he is unable to understand them. There must be mutual effort directed to the same end. The teacher must strive to cause the pupil to learn a particular fact or truth that he wants him to know ; the learner must seek to learn this particular fact or truth, and until the two are enlisted in this common work, the process of teaching has not begun. To be sure, teaching and learning are things of degrees ; I am here speaking of the ideal.

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as giving or imparting knowledge. Every one must make his own knowledge, for man is a knowledge-maker by nature. All that one person can do for another, as a teacher for a pupil, is to help to do this work. The child is engaged in making knowledge from his earliest days.'

'^ " In this sense we have all been engaged more or less in original research from our earliest years ; and we probably attain greater success in infancy than in youth or in later life. The young child is completely j2 THE ART OF STUD V.

Learning governs teaching, as the history of the word suggests. Once, and this no farther back than Spenser and Shakespeare, learning applied to both efforts, that of the pupil as well as that of the teacher ; a man could learn a lesson or he could learn a pupil.

The function or office of the pupil and the function or office of the teacher are therefore perfectly clear. The pupil is to learn, the teacher is to teach or help Pupil and \^i^ learn ; both are active about the same thing, but active in different ways. More definitely, the function or office of the teacher is to mediate Ibetween the pupil's mind and the things that the pupil must learn or know. The question whether the teacher shall lead the pupil to these things or bring the things to the pupil, is much like the question of bringing the horse and the water together. The teacher's success is measured by the pupil's success. We shall not here enter into the elements that are involved in successful mediation between mind and knowledge, that is, in teaching, further than to say that the teacher must select matter which is suitable for the pupil at his stage of advancement, and so combine, arrange, and present this matter that the pupil can understand and learn.

Parallel Reading. — Teachiiig and Teachers, H. Clay Trumbull. Philadelphia, John D. Wattles, 1884. Chap. I. ("The Teaching Process." I have made free use of this chapter in preparing my own.) Studies in Education, B. A. Hinsdale. Chicago and New York, Werner School Book Co., 1896. Chap. I. (" The Sources of Human Cultivation").

cut off from all external sources of information; audit could acquire no knowledge beyond a remembrance of confused sensations, if it did not

LEARNING AND TEACHING. 13

possess the power of putting that and that together and finding things out for itself. By applying this power, however, the child succeeds in bringing a large measure of order out of the chaos of sensations which it experiences. The method that it uses is the scientific or knowledge-making method." Prof. A. MacMechan.

Chapter II. Study And Its Relations To Learning And Teaching

Learning is the activity of the pupil, teaching the activity of the instructor ; and in the good school the two activities are found in constant relation. The pupil is striving to learn ; the instructor to teach. We are now to define study and demonstrate its relation to teaching and learning.

Our English words '* study," ^' student," and '* studious " all go back to the Latin verb stndcre^ which means, first, " study," to be eager, zealous, or diligent about somebody '* student," or somethingr — to be friendly, attached, or

"Studious."- 1 1 ^ ^ r t . ,

favorable to a person, or to favor him ; and secondly, to apply one's self with zeal and interest to the acquisition of knowledge or learning, or to study. Both definitions denote an active state of mind; that is, the element of zeal or interest found in the original word runs through all its changes. In the second sense, therefore, a student would be one who pursues some subject with interest ; he would study when he devotes himself zealously to mastering some subject, while a study would be a subject that he could pursue with zeal. The second and later meaning of the word seems remote from the

STUDY, LEARNING, AND TEACHING. 15

first one, but it is not difficult to explain how it originated.i

We shall have no further use for the original meaning of studcre, since our subject lies wholly in the line of the

later meaning or definition of the word. But ?*"fnin*^^ even here we must narrow the field ; for study,

in the proper sense of the term, is by no means co-extensive with the pursuit or the zealous pursuit of knowledge. The tendency of usage is to confine the word within much narrower limits. Dr. Alexander Bain, for example, finds the idea of study closely associated with that of learning from books. To quote a few sentences from this writer :

" We may stretch the word, without culpable license, to comprise the observation of facts of all kinds, but it more naturally suggests

the resort to book-lore for the knowledge that we are in on Study. ' Q^est of. There is considerable propriety in restricting

it to this meaning ; or, at all events, in treating the art of becoming wise through reading as different from the arts of observing facts at first hand. In short, study should not be made co-extensive

1 The question to be answered is how studere^ which meant originally merely to be zealous about something, or to be diligent in general, came to be limited to diligence about knowledge or learning. Why was not the word limited to plowing, tailoring, or baking bread ? Obviously, if a man is really eager or zealous about somebody or something, he will naturally give him or it serious attention ; that is, he will inquire and try to find out how he can favor the man or secure the thing ; and such inquiry is just what constitutes study in the secondary sense of the word. This gives the process or method prominence, and it was easy when this point had been reached, if not indeed necessary, to limit shidere in the abstract, or to study as we are accustomed to use the word. Thus it came about that stiidere came to mean to pursue knowledge zealously, and studium, the correlative noun, came to mean a subject, a branch of knowledge, or a study. Studium also meant a place where study is done, or a school. Thus, the institutions that we now call universities were originally called studia iiniversalia, or public schools.

l6 THE ART OF STUDY.

with knowledge-getting, but with book-learning. In thus narrowing the field, we have the obvious advantage of cultivating it more carefully, and the unobvious, but very real advantage of dealing with one homogeneous subject."

The last remark refers solely to Dr. Bain's own treatment of the subject, but it is just as applicable to my own. study and He says again : " The mental exercise that we the Use of j-^qw Call ' study ' began when books began, when knowledge was reduced to language and laid out systematically in verbal compositions." ^

So far the history of the word supports Dr. Bain's view. Unmistakably the tendency has been to confine the study not word '' study " to the use of books. When we i^imitedto deal witli real things, as natural objects, we commonly employ some other word or words. One may, to be sure, study a daisy, a crab, or a piece of coral, but he is more apt to say he examines or investigates it. When Dr. Bain goes further, however, as he does, and says that study *' relates more to self-education than to instruction under masters ; " that ** it supposes the voluntary choice of the individual rather than the constraint of an outward discipline," and that '' the time for its application is when the pupil is emancipated from the prescription and control of the scholastic curriculum," we cannot yield our assent. This view excludes teachers and the school from the field of study properly so-called, and confines the word to self-cultivation, which usage, at least in this country, would not sanction, however it may be in England. With us, certainly, usage does not tend even to the partial exclusion of schools and teachers from this field. On the other hand, the word at once suggests those instruments of education.

^ Practical Essays, New York, 1). Appleton & Co., 1884, pp. 203-4.

STUDY, LEARNING, AND TEACHING.

Still it is an important fact that study is not limited to schools. Men can study and do study without schools study not ^"^ teachers ; to suppose that they do not is to i^imitedto commit a blunder even greater than to Say that pupils do not study in schools. Unfortunately, many youths, on taking leave of school, leave study and studies behind them. They forget that when what Rosenkranz calls " the absolute limit of education " ^ is reached, the original inequality between the pupil and the teacher is canceled, and that the pupil should now enter into the field of self-culture. The two persons may continue to be friends, but they are no longer teacher and pupil. The relation that these words express is a beautiful one in its own proper time, but, protracted beyond that time, it is offensive. It argues patronage upon the one part and dependence upon the other. The French philosopher Condillac, addressing a pupil who had reached this stage of progress, said : '' Henceforth, Sir, it remains for you alone to instruct yourself. Perhaps you imagine you have finished ; but it is I who have finished. You are to begin anew "^ This is the point of view from which it is sometimes said that the business of the teacher is to make himself useless, which he does by putting the pupil upon his feet and teaching him to walk alone.

What has been said suggests the relation to each other

of reading and study. As an exercise of mind, they do

not differ save in dee^ree ; both arts look to and Study obtaHimg thought or meanmg from the prmted

Discrimi- page. But study is more than reading: it

may be called intensive reading. The student

goes over the matter more attentively than the reader ;

1 The Philosophy of Ed7icatio7t, New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1886, p. 49.

2 History of Pedagogy, Compayre, Boston, D. C. Heath & Co., 1886, p. 318. Art of Shidy . — 2 .

he recalls it more fully, possesses himself of it more thoroughly. There is a difference, too, in the subject-matter of reading and study. We do not commonly apply the term " reading " to text-books and other works of a similar character prepared expressly for school use, but to books or other reading matter of a more general character containing literary elements. Thus, the pupil studies his grammar and arithmetic, reads or studies his *' Lady of the Lake " or ''Hamlet," but only reads the daily newspaper (unless it be the scores of the ball games) and the fugitive essay. Still more, reading embraces a wider range of mental interests than study. We read for amusement or diversion as well as for serious instruction, but that idea is rarely associated with studies, or at least with studies carried on in the school. Thus there appears in the modern word '' study " that element of zeal or thoroughness which characterizes the ancient word studcrc.

The remark should be added that in England study is not used in our peculiar school sense; "read" is rather The En - '^^^ word that is employed where we say lish Sense " study." Thus, at the universities, the studcnt of Rea ." '< reads " chemistry and calculus, Demosthenes and Tacitus, as well as Adam Smith and David Hume, while the hard student is the "■ hard reader." Again, we have spoken of knowledge or instruction as though it constituted the end both of study and of serious reading, nay more, the end of learning itself. This is a controverted question as well as an important one, but it will not be dealt with in this place beyond the promise to consider it in a future chapter.

In view of the preceding discussion the answer to the question. What is the relation of study to learning and teaching ? is obvious enough. Study is the use of

STUDY, LEARNING, AND TEACHING. 19

books for the serious purpose of gaining knowledge ; it looks to the mastery of a subject, or of some

study and . . , . , r 1

i^earning. portion of a subject, by means of what has been written about it. More narrowly, pupils and students commonly associate study with text-books, but the association is not a necessary one. Study is a mode of learning, but not the only mode, for we can learn by observation, by listening to conversation, or by the simple reading of an article in the newspaper. Successful study of a subject is the same thing as learning it ; if the student succeeds with a lesson, he knows it, not, perhaps, as fully as the author, or as the teacher, but he knows it according to his own measure. Thus the word tends to exclude oral instruction and the direct investigation of facts ; that is, lectures or other oral lessons and the work of the laboratory. At the same time, the exclusion of these exercises is more formal than real, because intellectual applications never wholly lose their identity. Still, we shall best advance our immediate object by keeping books, and particularly text-books, constantly in mind ; for while the investigation of things and the study of books have much in common, they are, nevertheless, distinct arts. The library is not a laboratory or the laboratory a library, except in a figure of speech. And, still further, notwithstanding the great progress made in recent years by real study, that is by the direct study of objects, as in nature lessons, the book still gives, and will continue to give, the norm to the school.

Parallel Reading. — Practical Essays, Alexander Bain. .New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1884. Chap. VIII. ("The Art of Study"). (See Chapter XXI. of the present work for further references).

Chapter III. The Art Of Study Defined

We have now defined learning, teaching, and study, and demonstrated their relations. The pupil learns when he acquires knowledge, and the teacher teaches when he assists the pupil to learn. Again, the pupil studies when he seeks to meet his teacher fairly and squarely on the lesson that has been assigned him by preparing that lesson. But what is the art of study ?

The term " art " is used in two senses. First, it means skill or practical ability actually shown in the pursuit of Two Senses some calling or activity. Secondly, it means of Art: The ^\^q activity in which such skill is shown con-

Practical

and the sidcrcd as a subject. Thus, when we speak of Reflective, ^j^^ photographer's art we may mean either the degree of skill or proficience that a particular photographer shows in making photographs, or the making of such pictures considered as a vocation to be followed or a subject to be studied. The same may be said of painting, oratory, architecture, teaching, or any other pursuit to which the term '* art " is properly applied. To be master of one's art is to possess much ability in the prosecution of some employment called an art. Furthermore, an art in the second sense has its own methods, rules, and history that may be made the subjects of investigation or

study. In this sense the term " reflective " may be applied

THE ART OF STUDY DEFINED. 2 1

to an art, the suggestion being that the cultivator of this art halts, so to speak, in his practice or activity in order to make it the subject of examination. Nor is this all : certain arts have rules and methods in common, and so we apply the term to them collectively, calling them art in a general or abstract sense.

The relations of art as practical skill and art as method or a code of rules is an interesting subject. Experience Relations counts for much in such matters, but the intelof skm and iJgent practice of any art presupposes a certain

Method. r 1 /- r • • 1 •

amount of study of, or of acquamtance with, its method and rules. The practitioner in such case must be familiar with the leading features of his art. He may not have acquired his knowledge in large degree from books or lectures, but, if not, he must have investigated the subject directly for himself. On the other hand, it is equally clear that no mere investigation of an art, no amount of knowledge concerning it, will, of itself, make a skillful practitioner or artist. Knowledge, while invaluable in itself, can never be made to take the place of that practice which makes perfect. The student, if he would possess skill, must try his own 'prentice hand. until it becomes a practiced hand. There are many students of painting, sculpture, and other arts, who are not looking forward to the practice of these arts at all, but who pursue them because they think the knowledge thus acquired is useful, or because they value the culture that they afford.

The value of practice or experience in what are sometimes called *' practical matters" is well understood; so

well, indeed, that the " theory," as it is often ^^gQ^Jy^^ ^"*^ mistakenly called, is greatly undervalued in

comparison with practice; but in other fields theory is sometimes overrated. In moral training, for example, it is sometimes assumed that the great thing is the acquirement of moral ideas, precepts, and rules, or moral instruction, thus ignoring or undervaluing moral habits, which can be built up only through activity or practice.

What has been said of the arts in general is true of the art of study in particular. The phrase means, first, per- TheArtof ^^^"^^^ ^^^^^' ^^ practical abihty, in carrying on Study studies, and, secondly, study as a subject of

Defined. investigation, consisting of its own peculiar method and rules.' The student illustrates the first meaning of the art of study when he studies according to an intelligent plan some subject, such as history or literature ; and the second, when he seeks by study to find out the method and rules of the art, whether by his own immediate effort or by attending to the instruction of a teacher or an author. In this second sense study is a reflective art.

What has now been called art in the second or reflective sense, is sometimes called theory or science. This is a Reflective gi'cat mistake. Theory or science consists of Aft and facts anc^ principles ; reflective art, of rules and

methods; both duly organized. The one answers the questions what ? and why ? the other the question how "^

To the preceding discussion of study as an art, two or three observations should be added.

I. It is not necessary that a student, to be successful in study, should study his art in a formal or reflective way.

Few good students, even those as far advanced FormaTiTrt! ^^ the College, have done so. These students

have acquired their skill in study by the practice of study. It is, to be sure, a fair question whether

THE AR T OF STUD V DEFINED.

students, or at least advanced students, might not give more formal attention to their art with advantage to themselves ; but we shall not enter upon a discussion of the question in this place.

2. The student may study his art laboriously and never become a good student ; that is, never learn to practice

his art successfully. Here, as elsewhere, one not'pictice. ^""^^y acquire knowledge of method, rule, and

precept without acquiring the ability or skill to put it to use. In fact, at a certain stage of progress, such knowledge is a positive disadvantage, as it impedes rather than accelerates practice. But the main fact is this — a pupil will learn to study by studying, and not otherwise, just as he will learn to swim by swimming, and not otherwise.