CHAPTER I.

E-text prepared by Al Haines

THE 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.