The Elements of General Method
C >> Charles A. McMurry >> The Elements of General MethodTHE ELEMENTS OF GENERAL METHOD
Based on the Principles of Herbart.
by
CHARLES A. McMURRY, PH.D.
Second Edition
Public-School Publishing Co., Publishers,
Bloomington, Illinois.
1893
Copyright, 1893.
By C. A. McMurry, Normal, Ill.
PREFACE.
The Herbart School of Pedagogy has created much stir in Germany in the
last thirty years. It has developed a large number of vigorous writers
on all phases of education and psychology, and numbers a thousand or
more positive disciples among the energetic teachers of Germany.
Those American teachers and students who have come in contact with the
ideas of this school have been greatly stimulated.
In such a miscellaneous and many-sided thing as practical education, it
is deeply gratifying to find a clear and definite leading purpose that
prevails throughout and a set of mutually related and supporting
principles which in practice contribute to the realization of this
purpose.
The following chapters cannot be regarded as a full, exact, and
painfully scientific account of Herbartian ideas, but as a simple
explanation of their leading principles in their relations to each
other and in their application to our own school problems.
In the second edition the last chapter of the first edition has been
omitted, while the other chapters have been much modified and enlarged.
The chapter on the Formal Steps is reserved for enlargement and
publication in a separate form.
Normal, Ill., November 4, 1893.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
The Chief Aim of Education
CHAPTER II.
Relative Value of Studies
CHAPTER III.
Nature of Interest
CHAPTER IV.
Concentration
CHAPTER V.
Induction
CHAPTER VI.
Apperception
CHAPTER VII.
The Will
CHAPTER VIII.
Herbart and His Disciples
Books of Reference
CHAPTER I.
THE CHIEF AIM OF EDUCATION.
What is the central purpose of education? If we include under this
term all the things commonly assigned to it, its many phases as
represented by the great variety of teachers and pupils, the many
branches of knowledge and the various and even conflicting methods in
bringing up children, it is difficult to find a definition sufficiently
broad and definite to compass its meaning. In fact we shall not
attempt in the beginning to make a definition. We are in search not so
much of a comprehensive definition as of a central truth, a key to the
situation, an aim that will simplify and brighten all the work of
teachers. Keeping in view the end from the beginning, we need a
central organizing principle which shall dictate for teacher and pupil
the highway over which they shall travel together.
We will assume at least that education means the whole bringing up of a
child from infancy to maturity, not simply his school training. The
reason for this assumption is that home, school, companions,
environment, and natural endowment, working through a series of years,
produce a character which is a unit as the resultant of these different
influences and growths. Again, we are compelled to assume that this
aim, whatever it is, is the same for all.
Now what will the average man, picked up at random, say to our
question: What is the chief end in the education of your son? A farmer
wishes his boy to read, write, and cipher, so as to meet successfully
the needs of a farmer's life. The merchant desires that his boy get a
wider reach of knowledge and experience so as to succeed in a livelier
sort of business competition. A university professor would lay out a
liberal course of training for his son so as to prepare him for
intellectual pursuits among scholars and people of culture. This
utilitarian view, which points to success in life in the ordinary
sense, is the prevailing one. We could probably sum up the wishes of a
great majority of the common people by saying, "They desire to give
their children, through education, a better chance in life than they
themselves have had." Yet even these people, if pressed to give
reasons, would admit that the purely utilitarian view is a low one and
that there is something better for every boy and girl than the mere
ability to make a successful living.
Turn for a moment to the great _systems_ of education which have held
their own for centuries and examine their aims. The Jesuits, the
Humanists, and the Natural Scientists all claimed to be liberal,
culture-giving, and preparatory to great things; yet we only need to
quote from the histories of education to show their narrowness and
incompleteness. The training of the Jesuits was linguistic and
rhetorical, and almost entirely apart from our present notion of human
development. The Humanists or Classicists who for so many centuries
constituted the educational elite, belonged to the past with its
glories rather than to the age in which they really lived. Though
standing in a modern age, they were almost blind to the great problems
and opportunities it offered. They stood in bold contrast to the
growth of the modern spirit in history, literature, and natural
science. But in spite of their predominating influence over education
for centuries, there has never been the shadow of a chance for making
the classics of antiquity the basis of common, popular education. The
modern school of Natural Scientists is just as one-sided as the
Humanists in supposing that human nature is narrow enough to be
compressed within the bounds of natural science studies, however broad
their field may be.
But the systems of education in vogue have always lagged behind the
clear views of educational _reformers_. Two hundred fifty years ago
Comenius projected a plan of education for every boy and girl of the
common people. His aim was to teach all men all things from the
highest truths of religion to the commonest things of daily experience.
Being a man of simple and profound religious faith, religion and
morality were at the foundation of his system. But even the principles
of intellectual training so clearly advocated by Comenius have not yet
found a ready hearing among teachers, to say nothing of his great
moral-religious purpose. Among later writers, Locke, Rousseau, and
Pestalozzi have set up ideals of education that have had much
influence. But Locke's "gentleman" can never be the ideal of all
because it is intrinsically aristocratic and education has become with
us broadly democratic. After all, Locke's "gentleman" is a noble ideal
and should powerfully impress teachers. The perfect human animal that
Rousseau dreamed of in the Emile, is best illustrated in the noble
savage, but we are not in danger in America of adopting this ideal. In
spite of his merits the noblest savage falls short in several ways.
Yet it is important in education to perfect the physical powers and the
animal development in every child. Pestalozzi touched the hearts of
even the weakest and morally frailest children, and tried to make
improved physical conditions and intellectual culture contribute to
heart culture, or rather to combine the two in strong moral character.
He came close upon the highest aim of education and was able to
illustrate his doctrine in practice. The educational reformers have
gone far ahead of the schoolmasters in setting up a high aim in
education.
Let us examine a few well-known definitions of education by great
thinkers, and try to discover a central idea.
"The purpose of education is to give to the body and to the soul all
the beauty and all the perfection of which they are capable."--_Plato_.
"Education includes whatever we do for ourselves and whatever is done
for us by others for the express purpose of bringing us nearer to the
perfection of our nature."--_John Stuart Mill_.
"Education is the preparation for complete living."--_Herbert Spencer_.
"Education is the harmonious and equable evolution of the human
faculties by a method based upon the nature of the mind for developing
all the faculties of the soul, for stirring up and nourishing all the
principles of life, while shunning all one-sided culture and taking
account of the sentiments upon which the strength and worth of men
depend."--_Stein_.
"Education is the sum of the reflective efforts by which we aid nature
in the development of the physical, intellectual, and moral faculties
of man in view of his perfection, his happiness, and his social
destination."--_Compayre_.
These attempts to bring the task of education into a comprehensive,
scientific formula are interesting and yet disappointing. They agree
in giving great breadth to education. But in the attempt to be
comprehensive, to omit nothing, they fail to specify that wherein the
_true worth_ of man consists; they fail to bring out into relief the
highest aim as an organizing idea in the complicated work of education
and its relation to secondary aims.
We desire therefore to approach nearer to this problem: _What is the
highest aim of education_?
We will do so by an inquiry into the aims and tendencies of our public
schools. To an outward observer the schools of today confine their
attention almost exclusively to the acquisition of certain forms of
knowledge and to intellectual training, to the mental discipline and
power that come from a varied and vigorous exercise of the faculties.
The great majority of good schoolmasters stand squarely upon this
platform, knowledge and mental discipline. But they are none the less
deeply conscious that this is not the highest aim of education. We
scarcely need to be told that a person may be fully equipped with the
best that this style of education can give, and still remain a
criminal. A good and wise parent will inevitably seek for a better
result in his child than mere knowledge, intellectual ability, and
power. All good schoolmasters know that behind school studies and
cares is the still greater task of developing manly and womanly
character. Perhaps, however, this is too high and sacred a thing to
formulate. Perhaps in the attempt to reduce it to a scientific form we
should lose its spirit. Admitting that strong moral character is the
noblest result of right training, is it not still incidental to the
regular school work? Perhaps it lies in the teacher and in his manner
of teaching subjects, and not in the subject-matter itself nor in any
course of study.
This is exactly the point at which we wish to apply the lever and to
lift into prominence the _moral character-building aim_ as the central
one in education. This aim should be like a loadstone, attracting and
subordinating all other purposes to itself. It should dominate in the
choice, arrangement, and method of studies.
Let us examine more carefully the convictions upon which the moral aim
rests. Every wise and benevolent parent knows that the first and last
question to ask and answer regarding a child is "What are his moral
quality and strength?" Now, who is better able to judge of the true
aim than thoughtful and solicitous _parents_? In the second place, it
is inconceivable that a conscientious _teacher_ should close his eyes
to all except the intellectual training of his pupils. It is as
natural for him to touch and awaken the moral qualities as it is for
birds to sing. Again, the _state_ is more concerned to see the growth
of just and virtuous citizens than in seeing the prosperity of
scholars, inventors, and merchants. It is also concerned with the
success of the latter, but chiefly when their knowledge, skill, and
wealth are equaled by their virtues. Our country may have vast
resources and great opportunities, but everything in the end depends
upon the _moral quality_ of its men and women. Undermine and corrupt
this and we all know that there is nothing to hope for. The
uncorrupted stock of true patriots in our land is firmly rooted in this
conviction, which is worth more to the country than corn-fields and
iron mines. The perpetual enticement and blandishment of worldly
success so universal in our time can not move us if we found one theory
and practice upon the central doctrine of moral education. Education,
therefore, in its popular, untrammeled, moral sense, is the greatest
concern of society.
In projecting a general plan of popular education we are beholden to
the prejudices of no man nor class of men. Not even the traditional
prejudices of the great body of teachers should stand in the way of
setting up the noblest ideal of education. Educational thinkers are in
duty bound to free themselves from utilitarian notions and narrowness,
and to adopt the best platform that children by natural birthright can
stand upon. They are called upon to find the best and to apply it to
as many as possible. Let it be remembered that each child has a
complete growth before him. His own possibilities and not the
attainments of his parents and elders are the things to consider.
Shall we seek to avoid responsibility for the moral aim by throwing it
upon the family and the church? But the more we probe into educational
problems the more we shall find the essential unity of all educational
forces. The citadel of a child's life is his moral character, whether
the home, the school, or the church build and strengthen its walls. If
asked to define the relation of the school to the home we shall quickly
see that they are one in spirit and leading purpose, that instead of
being separated they should be brought closer together.
In conclusion, therefore, shall we make _moral character_ the clear and
conscious aim of school education, and then subordinate school studies
and discipline, mental training and conduct, to this aim? It will be a
great stimulus to thousands of teachers to discover that this is the
real purpose of school work, and that there are abundant means not yet
used of realizing it. Having once firmly grasped this idea, they will
find that there is no other having half its potency. It will put a
substantial foundation under educational labors, both theoretical and
practical, which will make them the noblest of enterprises. Can we
expect the public school to drop into such a purely subordinate
function as that of intellectual training; to limit its influence to an
almost mechanical action, the sharpening of the mental tools? Stated
in this form, it becomes an absurdity.
Is it reasonable to suppose that the rank and file of our teachers will
realize the importance of this aim in teaching so long as it has no
recognition in our public system of instruction? The moral element is
largely present among educators as an _instinct_, but it ought to be
evolved into a _clear purpose_ with definite means of accomplishment.
It is an open secret in fact, that while our public instruction is
ostensibly secular, having nothing to do directly with religion or
morals, there is nothing about which good teachers are more thoughtful
and anxious than about the means of moral influence. Occasionally some
one from the outside attacks our public schools as without morals and
godless, but there is no lack of staunch defenders on moral grounds.
Theoretically and even practically, to a considerable extent, we are
all agreed upon the great value of moral education. But there is a
striking inconsistency in our whole position on the school problem.
While the supreme value of the moral aim will be generally admitted, it
has no open recognition in our school course, either as a principal or
as a subordinate aim of instruction. Moral education is not germane to
the avowed purposes of the public school. If it gets in at all it is
by the back door. It is incidental, not primary. The importance of
making the leading aim of education clear and _conscious_ to teachers,
is great. If their conviction on this point is not clear they will
certainly not concentrate their attention and efforts upon its
realization. Again, in a business like education, where there are so
many important and necessary results to be reached, it is very easy and
common to put forward a subordinate aim, and to lift it into undue
prominence, even allowing it to swallow up all the energies of teacher
and pupils. Owing to this diversity of opinion among teachers as to
the results to be reached, our public schools exhibit a chaos of
conflicting theory and practice, and a numberless brood of hobby-riders.
How to establish the moral aim in the center of the school course, how
to subordinate and realize the other educational aims while keeping
this chiefly in view, how to make instruction and school discipline
contribute unitedly to the formation of vigorous moral character, and
how to unite home, school, and other life experiences of a child in
perfecting the one great aim of education--these are some of the
problems whose solution will be sought in the following chapters.
It will be especially our purpose to show how _school instruction_ can
be brought into the direct service of character-building. This is the
point upon which most teachers are skeptical. Not much effort has been
made of late to put the best moral materials into the school course.
In one whole set of school studies, and that the most important
(reading, literature, and history), there is opportunity through all
the grades for a vivid and direct cultivation of moral ideas and
convictions. The second great series of studies, the natural sciences,
come in to support the moral aims, while the personal example and
influence of the teacher, and the common experiences and incidents of
school life and conduct, give abundant occasion to apply and enforce
moral ideas.
That the other justifiable aims of education, such as physical
training, mental discipline, orderly habits, gentlemanly conduct,
practical utility of knowledge, liberal culture, and the free
development of individuality will not be weakened by placing the moral
aim in the forefront of educational motives, we are convinced. To some
extent these questions will be discussed in the following pages.
CHAPTER II.
RELATIVE VALUE OF STUDIES.
Being convinced that the controlling aim of education should be moral,
we shall now inquire into the relative value of different studies and
their fitness to reach and satisfy this aim. As measured upon this
cardinal purpose, what is the intrinsic value of each school study?
The branches of knowledge furnish the materials upon which a child's
mind works. Before entering upon such a long and up-hill task as
education, with its weighty results, it is prudent to estimate not only
the end in view, but the best means of reaching it. Many means are
offered, some trivial, others valuable. A careful measurement, with
some reliable standard, of the materials furnished by the common
school, is our first task. To what extent does history contribute to
our purpose? What importance have geography and arithmetic? How do
reading and natural science aid a child to grow into the full stature
of a man or woman?
These questions are not new, but the answer to them has been long
delayed. Since the time of Comenius, to say the least, they have
seriously disturbed educators. But few have had the courage, industry,
and breadth of mind of a Comenius, to sound the educational waters and
to lay out a profitable chart. In spite of Comenius' labors, however,
and those of other educational reformers be they never so energetic,
practical progress toward a final answer, as registered in school
courses, has been extremely slow.
Herbert Spencer says: "If there needs any further evidence of the rude,
undeveloped character of our education, we have it in the fact that the
comparative worths of the different kinds of knowledge have been as yet
scarcely even discussed, much less discussed in a methodic way with
definite results. Not only is it that no standard of relative values
has yet been agreed upon, but the existence of any such standard has
not been conceived in any clear manner. And not only is it that the
existence of such a standard has not been clearly conceived, but the
need of it seems to have been scarcely even felt. Men read books on
this topic and attend lectures upon that, decide that their children
shall be instructed in these branches and not in those; and all under
the guidance of mere custom, or liking, or prejudice, without ever
considering the enormous importance of determining in some rational way
what things are really most worth learning. * * * * * Men dress their
children's minds as they do their bodies, in the prevailing fashion."
Spencer, _Education_, p. 26.
Spencer sees clearly the importance of this problem and gives it a
vigorous discussion in his first chapter, "What knowledge is of most
worth?" But the question is a broad and fundamental one and in his
preference for the natural sciences he seems to us not to have
maintained a just balance of educational forces in preparing a child
for "complete living." His theory needs also to be worked out into
greater detail and applied to school conditions before it can be of
much value to teachers. It can scarcely be said that any other
Englishman or American has seriously grappled with this problem. Great
changes and reforms indeed have been started, especially within the
last fifty years, but they have been undertaken under the pressure of
general popular demands and have resulted in compromises between
traditional forces and urgent popular needs. An adequate philosophical
inquiry into the relative merit of studies and their adaptability to
nurture mental, moral, and physical qualities has not been made.
The Germans have worked to a better purpose. Quite a number of able
thinkers among them have given their best years to the study of this
problem of relative educational values and to a working out of its
results. Herbart, Ziller, Stoy, and Rein have been deeply interested
in philosophy and psychology as life-long teachers of these subjects at
the university, but in their practice schools in the same place they
also stood daily face to face with the primary difficulties of ordinary
teaching. At the outset, and before laying out a course of study, they
were compelled to meet and settle the aim of education and the problem
of relative values. Having answered these questions to their own
satisfaction, they proceeded to work out in detail a common school
course. The Herbart school of teachers has presumed to call its
interpretation of educational ideas "scientific pedagogy," a somewhat
pretentious name in view of the fact that many leading educators in
Germany, England, and elsewhere, deny the existence of such a science.
But if not a science, it is at least a serious attempt at one. The
exposition of principles that follow is chiefly derived from them.
With us the present time is favorable to a rational inquiry into
relative educational values and to a thorough-going application of the
results to school courses and methods.
_In the first place_ the old _classical monopoly_ is finally and
completely broken, at least so far as the common school is concerned.
It ruled education for several centuries, but now even its methods of
discipline are losing their antique hold. The natural sciences, modern
history, and literature have assumed an equal place with the old
classical studies in college courses. Freed from old traditions and
prejudice, our common school is now grounded in the vernacular, in the
national history and literature, and in home geography and natural
science. Its roots go deep into native soil. _Secondly_, the door of
the common school has been thrown open to the new studies and they have
entered in a troop. History, drawing, natural science, modern
literature, and physical culture have been added to the old reading,
writing, and arithmetic. The common school was never so untrammeled.
It is free to absorb into its course the select materials of the best
studies. Teachers really enjoy more freedom in selecting and arranging
subjects and in introducing new things than they know how to make use
of. There is no one in high authority to check the reform spirit and
even local boards are often among the advocates of change. _In the
third place_, by multiplying studies, the common school course has
grown more complex and heterogeneous. The old reading, writing,
arithmetic, and grammar could not be shelved for the sake of the new
studies and the same amount of time must be divided now among many
branches. It is not to be wondered at if all the studies are treated
in a shallow and fragmentary way. Some of the new studies, especially,
are not well taught. There is less of unity in higher education now
than there was before the classical studies and "the three R's" lost
their supremacy. Our common school course has become a batch of
miscellanies. We are in danger of overloading pupils, as well as of
making a superficial hodge-podge of all branches. There is imperative
need for sifting the studies according to their value, as well as for
bringing them into right connection and dependence upon one another.
_Fourthly_, there is a large body of thoughtful and inquiring teachers
and principals who are working at a revision of the school course.
They seek something tangible, a working plan, which will help them in
their present perplexities and show them a wise use of drawing, natural
science, and literature, in harmony with the other studies. _Finally_,
since we are in the midst of such a breaking-up period, we need to take
our bearings. In order to avoid mistakes and excesses there is a call
for deep, impartial, and many-sided thinking on educational problems.
Supposing that we know what the controlling aim of education is, we are
next led to inquire about and to determine the relative value of
studies as tributary to this aim.