Conflicting principles in teaching and how to adjust them

Front matter

GopyrigM°_

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT:

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES IN TEACHING

PART I Opposing Principles or Dualisms in School Discipline and Instruction

I. The Realm of Controversy 3

II. School Management — Its Natural Dualisms 12

III. Instruction — Logical Continuity and

Cross Lines in Thinking 48

IV. Dictation and Independent Thought . . 75

V. How to get Self- Activity and Initiative . 102 I. Help and self-help.

II. Interest and effort.

VI. Standards of Excellence 138

I. Over-thoroughness and superficiality. II. Perfection and crudeness in work.

VII. Two Important Contrasts 162

I. The concrete and the abstract.

II. Form and content.

VIII. Class Instruction and Individual Instruction 190

PART II Opposing Elements in General Educational Problems and Theories

IX. Antithetical Elements in School Studies . 213 I. The idealistic and the useful.

II. The serious and the humorous.

vi CONTENTS

X. Contrasts in Child and in Society . . . 223 I. The child, physical and mental.

II. Heredity and environment.

III. The individual and the social whole.

XI. The Gulf between Theory and Practice . 237

XII. The Controversy as to Scholarship and a

Science of Education or Pedagogy . .252

XIII. Three Pairs of Dual Principles in Educa-

tion 261

I. Conservatives and progressives.

II. Secular versus moral education.

III. General training and vocation.

XIV. Conclusions 278

Index 283

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES IN TEACHING

PART I

OPPOSING PRINCIPLES OR DUALISMS IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND INSTRUCTION

CONFLICTING PKINCIPLES IN TEACHING

Chapter I

Jean Paul Richter, speaking in his Levana of the contradictions in family and home education, says: —

If the secret variances of a large class of ordinary fathers were brought to light and laid down as a plan of studies, and an outline of moral education, they would run somewhat after this fashion: In the first hour pure morality must be read to the child, either by myself or the tutor; in the second, mixed morality, or that which may be applied to one's advantage; in the third, "Do you not see that your father does so and so? " in the fourth, "You are little and this is only fit for grown people"; in the fifth, "The chief matter is that you should succeed in the world and become something in the State" ; in the sixth, "Not the temporary but the eternal determines the worth of man"; in the seventh, "Therefore rather suffer injustice and be kind"; in the eighth, "But defend yourself bravely if any one attack you"; in the ninth, "Do not make such a noise, dear child"; in the tenth, "A boy must not sit so quiet"; in the eleventh, "You must obey your parents better "; in the twelfth, "And educate yourself."

So by the hourly change of his principles, the father conceals their untenableness and one-sidedness. As for his wife, she is neither like him nor like that harlequin who came on to the stage with a bundle of papers under each arm, and answered to the inquiry what he had under his right arm, "orders," and to what he had under his left, "counterorders." But the mother might better be compared to a giant Briareus who had a hundred arms and a bundle of papers under each.

Our practical education bristles with contradiction. Even a superficial survey of prevailing practice and principles in education shows them often running at cross-purposes. Learning to read in the first grade illustrates this. Some trained primary teachers demand a systematic formal drill in the phonetic elements combined with the forms of letters. Beginners are trained into the habit of quickly interpreting new word-forms by combining the elementary sounds. Other experienced and zealous primary teachers practice a sentence-and-thought method which makes the mastery of phonic elements and forms entirely secondary and incidental. A strong effort is made by such persons to avoid systematic formal drills. Primary readers and charts are worked out in accordance with each of these strongly contrasted methods of learning to read. In arithmetic, also, the spiral plan of arranging topics provides for a brief, incomplete treatment of a topic such as the table of long measure, and a frequent return to this topic at stated intervals after other intervening topics have had a similar short presentation. Such is the plan of the Werner arithmetics. Other arithmetics provide for a complete and adequate treatment of a topic at one time, in one series of continuous lessons, till it is mastered, that is, till the process is fully understood and variously applied. The two methods are in pronounced opposition.

The source method of handling history topics in some cases dispenses with a textbook and seeks to construct history out of interesting original documents. The more usual plan is a close adherence to an assigned lesson in a book, with no use of outside references. These are staring contrasts in method. Some teachers and county superintendents require children to learn and locate all the counties in a State like Illinois or Pennsylvania. Other teachers and courses dispense entirely with this kind of local geographical information and deal with what they call more important facts and topics. Such contradictory practices and theories prevail all through our educational system and leave young teachers in a quandary.

More reflective study of these difficulties reveals deeper-lying oppositions which are so fundamental as to constitute the knotty problems for thinkers and experts in education. Even the basis of moral education is in dispute, namely, whether it is secured through moral instruction and precept or through the direct guidance of behavior. People differ greatly as to the main purpose of the common school: with some it is mental discipline; with others useful and practical information; with still others it is breadth of social interest, and adjustment to life conditions, — citizenship in a broad and liberal sense. Vocational training and guidance are now coming into prominence, and relative to it there is wide diversity of plans and of controlling ideas. The old doctrine of formal mental discipline is still cherished by conservative teachers, while the opposing doctrine of interest and pleasure in the normal activities of study is strongly supported by many. The relative place and importance of inductive and deductive processes of thought, as applied to classroom work, are still in dispute. That old question — how to develop strong will-power — is still a matter of wide diversity of opinion. The elective system has its friends and enemies. In the opinion of enthusiastic advocates, the manual arts are to exert a reorganizing influence upon our elementary school course. Others believe that the manual arts must hold quite a subordinate place among the valuable studies of the common school. In our educational meetings all these and many other topics have been the source of continued disagreement and controversy.

Again, writers on education, like John Locke, Rousseau, Montaigne, Spencer, Herbart, Huxley, Harris, Rein, William James, and Froebel, differ even to contradiction in their statement of fundamental doctrines. Most psychologists place emphasis upon the formation of right habits. Rousseau says that his Emile shall form no habits except the habit of not forming habits. Herbart requires, as a fundamental basis for the right kind of work, that school studies shall be essentially interesting, and affirms that studies which fail to awaken any permanent interest have but small value. William James, while admitting the value of interest, says, "It is certain that most school work, till it has become habitual and automatic, is repulsive." Such contrary views are not uncommon among all classes of writers upon educational topics.

This diversity or contrariety of opinions among theorists and practical educators leads many people easily to the conclusion that there are few settled standards in education, no real pedagogical science, and that our well-meant efforts to train teachers are not founded on broad basal principles, but are of the nature of devices and accommodations to practical needs. Whatever fundamental principles we may have are at least obscured and covered up by these controversies. The opponents and critics of a science of education discover in such disagreements and conflicts of opinion a direct support for their hostile criticisms. Now, if we can clear the field of all unnecessary controversies, we may be able to rescue our main educational doctrines from discredit and thus secure a more generally acknowledged basis for educational science. Such wide variety of opinions and lack of agreement on fundamental issues are not only discouraging, but, to some extent, demoralizing, to the rank and file of teachers. Even principals and superintendents are disconcerted by these opposing claims which throw a hesitating uncertainty into a teacher's actions. In recent times this confusion of tongues has been increased by new elements of discord. The present unusually conflicting and chaotic state of our course of study and of our school doctrine and practice is due to rapid and radical changes, to numerous importations of new materials and new ideas, which have been rapidly accumulated, but are not yet organized into a consistent plan. Our aims and our theories are now undergoing the process of reconstruction and reformation: practice, in trying to keep up with these swift changes, takes on a variety of inconsistent forms. There has been a recasting of old methods and an evolution of the new.

At lucid intervals in this long-drawn-out and widespread conflict, we may well seek a few moments for reflection and try to take stock of our situation and of our achievements. It is not difficult to discover that disagreement, conflict, and more or less confusion prevail in courses of study, in classroom practice, and in administrative policy. Much of this discord is inevitable as a sort of clearing-house for adjusting claims and for sifting out essentials.

From all this educational discussion and controversy we may expect, as time ripens, permanent and valuable results — sounder theories and better practice. Much of what appears radical contradiction in ideas and usages may prove in the end to be good doctrine carried to unwarranted extremes. Debate naturally leads to extreme statements. But debate or partisan controversy is a slow and exasperating method of reaching important results. It is quite possible that a more deliberate, many-sided, judicial attitude of mind toward our large educational problems would at once obliterate half our antagonisms and thus give us a much better chance to get at the main issues. Even in these larger and more fundamental problems deliberate and carefully balanced judgments may harmonize differences and bring about agreement and unity of effort. From a broader, more inclusive point of view, these apparently conflicting principles, when properly interpreted and adjusted to each other, are found to be the complementary segments of a larger whole.

In education, as in other fields of human experience, fundamental issues are often double-faced, like the god Janus, looking in opposite directions. Our Federal Government, for example, with its balance of powers, is such a paradox, one out of many. It involves two poles of thought. The knotty problem for the thinker is the one that springs from two seemingly opposing principles which must somehow be brought into unison. It is this double-sided, paradoxical quality which makes the difficulty in the problem, without which it would not be a problem. The solution of such a problem calls for a larger liberality of mind which can discover a mutuality in seeming opposites. When two such warring principles maintain themselves strongly in educational discussion for a long period of time, the suspicion is justified that there may be some more comprehensive view which will dissolve the antagonism and thus bring into light a larger segment of truth. From this point of view seeming antagonisms between educational doctrines are by no means objectionable or discouraging. They rather point out the centers of progressive effort, the very spots where energy can be expended to the best advantage in the search for a larger truth, a truth which will combine the opposites.

As a result of past educational theorizing and practice, we have a collection of important principles which are more or less scattered, isolated, and contradictory. A higher organization and unification of these principies is demanded which will quench useless antagonisms and concentrate effort at the points of efficiency.

Our purpose in this book is to point out the lines of reconciliation by which many of the now opposing forces can be brought into cooperation, the controversies set aside, and, perhaps, the knotty problems solved.

A few points of controversy

1. Should children be required to memorize important proverbs and statements of truth which they do not clearly understand?

2. Is a marking system based on percentages a good arrangement for schools?

3. Is it advisable to have the more capable children in a class by themselves, and the slower ones of about equal ability by themselves?

4. Should prizes be given for excellence in school work?

5. Should instruction in intermediate grades be chiefly oral, or should textbooks be mainly used?

6. Should rules in arithmetic be thoroughly memorized? Also definitions in grammar?

7. In manual training should all the children in a class make the same thing, of the same size, materials, dimensions, joints, etc.? Or, should each child make what he likes according to his own design?

8. Should children's mistakes in English be corrected while they are reciting?

9. Which is the better mode of instruction, private tutoring or teaching children in classes?

10. May children be held to a strict use of a phonic method in primary reading?

11. Can we train the memory?

12. Is the use of a spelling-book advisable?

13. In language study is it better to learn a modern language, or an ancient language, first?

14. Should games and construction exercises be used as a part of the regular school time?

15. Should the "Three R's" receive the chief emphasis in school, or are other studies of equal or more importance?

16. Is the grammar school the place to begin vocational training?

17. Is it well to introduce self-government into schools?

18. Is it advisable to allow corporal punishment in schools?

Chapter II School Management — Its Natural Dualisms

The management of children in a school is a double problem of individual and of social control, which involves necessary contradictions. One must bring into cooperation several groups of forces which only too easily are thrown into opposition. Where such conflicts naturally arise, it is prudent to inquire into the sources of contradiction and the means of hindrance. One method of analyzing this complex problem is to pair off the contradictory elements and to search out in each case a broader principle of reconciliation and harmony.

I. The first pair of opposites may be stated in the form of a question, — Can children be trained, at one and the same time, into two such opposite virtues as prompt obedience to authority and free, self -controlled, independent action? On the one hand, the school is under obligation to train children into the spirit and practice of obedience. The conduct of children must be regulated by law; for without it the school falls to pieces. Society itself, without this cohesive principle of obedience to authority, could not hold together. The school, by generating respect for authority and by basing upon this the habit of obedience to law, fulfills one of its chief obligations to society. In organizing and administering the affairs of the school the principle of obedience to authority is, therefore, fundamental.

But, on the other hand, children in school, as elsewhere, require freedom. They are not slaves and are not to be trained into a slavish and cowering spirit. They have a birthright of freedom and independence, not to be curtailed, but encouraged and enlarged. In this respect the purpose of the school is not to suppress children, nor to subjugate them to arbitrary will, but rather to develop them into the spirit and habit of freedom. It must become, of course, a regulated freedom, based upon respect for law. And herein is found the principle of adjustment by which these seeming opposites are combined.

In a special class made up of truant and troublesome boys from 12 to 15 years of age, drawn from several schools, we have been making the experiment of combining shop-work and school- work in nearly equal proportions, with the definite purpose of developing in them better habits of control in work and study. We are trying always to give them more freedom of action and at the same time to develop in them a cheerful obedience to school regulations. The chief inducement we can offer them is shop-work in printing, book-binding, and wood-construction and other activities, which they like, which give them greater freedom of choice and action, and such a practical treatment of school studies as appeals to their needs and interests (vocational, etc.). Their habits of truancy and their lack of respect for orderliness and law are against our plans.

But we are using every inducement that legitimate opportunity for free action can give to draw them under the sway of law and order. The abnormal home conditions and lawless habits already formed increase the difficulty of combining freedom and law. But the necessity for this combination is also more clear and imperative. The George Junior Republic in New York is a still more extreme illustration of a serious effort to bring lawless city boys under control by allowing them freedom for self-government in managing their affairs.

Gradually, through the enlightening and directing influences of discipline and instruction, boys and girls are to develop toward larger self-control and freedom.

By obedience to a well-administered, humane authority, they grow into intelligent regard for the regulations of school and of society. In the case of adolescents a stormy period often intervenes before these opposing principles get settled and adjusted to each other. At the close of their school years, if properly handled by parents and teachers, children should have acquired a respectful conformity to the regulations of home, of school, and of society. They should possess also an acquired skill in directing their own conduct independently, within the proper limits of law. This steady development into enlarged freedom of action under proper control takes place in every well-conducted family and in every well-managed school. Such a combination of obedience and freedom will serve the best purposes both of the individual and of society.

How is the teacher to bring about this result? The theoretical statement of the difficulty and of the result to be achieved is easy. But the practical adjustment of the threatened discord is often a fine point of skill in management, requiring watchfulness, judgment, and patience. Obedience to authority and freedom to do as one pleases are often regarded by young people as strictly antagonistic. As children enter school in the first grade, the transition from the freedom of play to the orderly procedure of the school brings to light at once this conflict of forces. By its principle of order the school stands out in marked contrast to the spontaneous and unregulated activities that precede. Experienced primary teachers report to me that they do not at once lay down fixed rules of action for the beginners. The previous free, unconstrained movements of the children and their lack of voluntary control make it prudent for the teacher to have few if any rules, to issue direct commands sparingly. Under the guidance of a kind and steady hand the little ones begin to observe and even to feel the need of social order and of prompt conformity. But at best the change is a gradual one and requires tactful concession to a child's nature and stage of growth. In some children the lack of muscular control interferes at first with orderly movements about the room and in games. In other cases they have acquired at home whimsical or disobedient habits that must be supplanted by better ways and by a better spirit. This beginning of social control and this curbing of spontaneity without losing the sense of freedom is a beautiful illustration of artistic skill in teaching.

In intermediate grades, again, when the spirit of boyish independence breaks out, parents and teachers make an effort to keep the noise and bluster of the youngsters within limits. They maintain the spirit of order and control against carelessness and freakishness, and also against willfulness and bad temper. But the freedom of the realm, as Whittier describes it in The Barefoot Boy, is a native birthright of the boy to be fully respected and provided for. A hearty and joyous temperament is a great aid in working out this problem of control with boys. Teachers themselves should be boyish in their interests and enthusiasm.

With the onset of adolescence in the grammar grades and in the high school a danger point is reached where authority and freedom seem, for a time, to part company. The spirit of independence blazes up with phenomenal energy, while teachers and parents, taken, perhaps, by surprise, feel impelled to a powerful reaction from the side of authority. After all, it is necessary to some extent, as Arnold Winkelried said, to "make way for liberty." Wise parents and teachers find it prudent to allow the youth at this period considerable freedom. The outcome depends partly upon the strength of affections and habits already formed, and partly upon the sympathy and wisdom of parents and teachers in maintaining a just balance between authority and freedom. It is a storm-and-stress period full of cares and anxieties for those who feel responsible for its results. The spirit of freedom, and the spirit of obedience are not natural and easy yokefellows. It is a gradual process of adjustment by which they are brought into cooperation. Through experience and training, and the formation of habit, they learn to pull together.

It is this ever-present possibility of conflict and maladjustment which makes all government, whether in the State, the home, or the school, a ticklish experiment. It is a genuine problem which every teacher must face the moment he steps into a schoolroom. Nor can the child himself avoid this struggle which should result in self-mastery. When John, in a fit of passion or of sulkiness, refuses openly to obey a reasonable order, the teacher must step in, sometimes with a strong hand, and enforce obedience. Such drastic action, however, should be exceptional, and used only as a final resort when other precautionary measures fail. The care and forethought of the teacher, in using milder measures of suggestion and of kindly advice, should in most cases prevent such a collision.

In their school and playtime activities some children require encouragement to greater freedom of action; others need constraint. In a fourth-grade geography class, Katherine is reserved and taciturn, and never offers to recite or to ask a question. Mary, on the contrary, has a premature answer always ready, speaks out and interrupts others : she likes to talk. The problem is, how to encourage Katherine to more freedom of expression and to teach Mary self-control and reserve. Each child is in need of a sympathetic friend to help her out of her unfortunate habit. Such a habit based upon temperament is only slowly overcome. It requires kindness, firmness, and patience in the instructor. On the playground, Charles holds aloof as a mere passive onlooker. Peter rushes in eager to manage and control the game. The former should somehow catch the social spirit and learn to cooperate freely with his fellows, while Peter should feel a touch of modesty and have more regard for the person and rights of others. The playground and the outdoor excursion are now recognized as the best places for discovering and cultivating these personal qualities, for checking some and encouraging others.

The child is impulsive and unregulated. He is one-sided and extreme in his judgments. He is not a philosopher to discover the larger unity that combines opposing principles. The burden of compromise and adjustment lies upon the teacher with his larger experience and more balanced judgment. He will survey wisely this complex situation with its natural conflicts. He will take the initiative and, by direct and indirect means, guide the child's actions through the ways of obedience into freedom. We know that it can be done and is done every day by skillful teachers. Yet it is not easy to formulate the process nor to furnish illustrations that will exactly fit special cases that may arise.

The adjustment between opposing ideas is close and delicate. The teacher's own temperament and disposition will combine and embody these opposing mental attitudes. The teacher who has learned to subordinate his own pleasure and freedom of action to just requirements has already gained valuable experience in combining these discrepant elements of behavior. He has already developed into a larger freedom through self-control and obedience to law. He has often experienced the conflict of egoistic feelings with unselfish impulses and motives. For this reason he can better appreciate the struggle that is going on in the child's mind, and guide his impulsive movements toward rational self-control. Children are in the period of growth and change, of storm and stress, when the more complex and balanced habits of conduct have not yet been formed. Education, in this fundamental moral sense, is the process by which these conflicting elements in the child's unformed character are gradually adjusted and welded together into habits under the guidance of a wiser, more experienced person. The more complex habits are thus formed out of which the larger framework of character grows.

Other important agencies in society are at work upon this same problem. In the family, the parents must daily practice with their children this fine art of reconciliation between authority and freedom. The failure of many homes to reach this standard in training their children is the cause of endless misery and misfortune. If political governments could put into effective practice this art of training citizens to freedom under law, perhaps conflicts, violence, civil brawls, and even war could be largely escaped. In countries like Mexico, where revolutions are the order of the day, government vibrates between the extremes of abitrary power and wild, reckless freedom. They run to lawlessness, or they submit for a time to a powerful dictator. They have not yet formed the complex habit of exercising freedom under law. Children are somewhat like the half-civilized races which have not yet developed to the point of combining freedom with law. In a good many families this problem has already been partly solved, and children coming from such homes submit without conflict to all sensible school regulations. Many children, less fortunate in their home surroundings, must learn this important lesson in the school.

II. Another phase of this same problem is found in a second form of contradiction. Decisiveness, or firmness, in dealing with children stands in contrast with gentleness. The teacher is called upon to be consistently firm and decisive in thought and action. He should not shift nor shuffle. He should find the right ground and stand upon it, come what may. Nothing short of this will command respect and secure authority. Teachers often neglect or forget their own rules, thus training children to do the same. It is better to make very few rules, perhaps only one important rule at a time; then follow this up steadily and persistently till the children are convinced that the master's action is steady and sure. Every such important ruling should be made only after deliberation and forethought; as far as possible with sound judgment as to ultimate consequences. In this way most serious mistakes are avoided. Firmness and consistency should follow in the track of this decision and form the basis of a teacher's good repute.

But decisiveness, if it stands alone, is often too abrupt and arbitrary. It gives needless offense by seeming to be hasty and inconsiderate. Important matters require to be handled with some deliberation, with proper show of courtesy to other opinions. At this point another quite opposite quality is imperatively needed, namely, gentleness. A gentle manner, a kindly spirit, a genuine good will toward children are quite as important as firmness. Gentleness is, indeed, a trait of human nature of some potency. It reconciles us to an unpleasant but necessary decision. It pours oil on the troubled waters and they subside.

Unfortunately in some cases, gentleness glides over too easily into complaisance and indulgence. It needs something behind it to give it strength and so we come back to firmness or decision, which is the complement of gentleness. The teacher should combine the two, or at least carry them along together as closely as possible without running to an extreme in either way. Robert is very anxious to join the boys in a game of ball. But he has been told for good reasons that he should first complete his lesson. A storm of feeling arises which ought to be handled with combined firmness and gentleness. Even where severe penalties must be applied, gentleness should offset their rigor. Here we have a contradiction in terms which explains the seriousness of the difficulty and the necessity for carefulness in adjusting and combining opposites.

Some teachers are by nature decisive; others are naturally gentle. Because of a predominant temper toward one side or the other, most persons must put themselves under discipline to acquire the art of balancing virtues, of combining two such opposites in suitable proportion and harmony. No teacher can afford to be decisive who is not at the same time gentle. Somehow we should find a way to smooth out this conflict, to obliterate this contradiction by a higher form of harmony. Again, there is a tendency to swing from one extreme to the other. Decisiveness first runs over into abruptness, harshness, and stubbornness; then, when the reaction comes, gentleness overflows into excess kindness and indulgence. This tendency to extremes gives a dangerous unstability to one's management of children.

Under normal conditions, the proper reaction of a child's behavior to the influence of teachers depends upon how well these seemingly contradictory elements are combined and put in action. Stubbornness in the teacher begets stubbornness in the pupil, or else a forced submission and a lasting resentment. On the other hand, too much of gentleness or concession begets waywardness and self-indulgence. A just and well-balanced treatment which combines firmness and gentleness commands respect and is certain to win out with the majority of children. Pestalozzi discovered and expressly stated that in his school at Stanz he could occasionally punish children severely without losing their affection, because his constant and painstaking labor in their behalf was such a convincing proof of his good will toward them.