Storey's chapter a number of forms and photographs calculated to serve
as aids in the organization and conduct of a College Department of
Hygiene. As Professor Storey's work is very distinctive, other
institutions which are striving to organize effective departments of
physical education would have found his experiences as graphically
depicted in these photographs and summed up in these charts extremely
helpful. Unfortunately it has proved impossible to print them here on
account of limitations of space, but all who are interested in
securing further information can obtain these valuable guides in the
introductory stages of the inauguration of a Department of Hygiene by
applying to the College of the City of New York. EDITOR.]
Footnotes:
[12] The construction of this chapter on the teaching of physical
training is based very largely upon the experiences and organization
of the Department of Hygiene in the College of the City of New York.
[13] This precollegiate instruction is, unfortunately, uniformly poor
in so far as it relates to health.
[14] The present enrollment in these classes, February, 1919, is
approximately 1500.
PART THREE
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
CHAPTER
X THE TEACHING OF ECONOMICS
_Frank A. Fetter_
XI THE TEACHING OF SOCIOLOGY
_A. J. Todd_
XII THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
A. AMERICAN HISTORY
_H. W. Elson_
B. MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY
_Edward Krehbiel_
XIII THE TEACHING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
_Charles Grove Haines_
XIV THE TEACHING OF PHILOSOPHY
_Frank Thilly_
XV THE TEACHING OF ETHICS
_Henry Neumann_
XVI THE TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY
_Robert S. Woodworth_
XVII THE TEACHING OF EDUCATION
A. TEACHING THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION
_Herman H. Horne_
B. TEACHING EDUCATIONAL THEORY
_Frederick E. Bolton_
X
THE TEACHING OF ECONOMICS
=Conception and aims of economics=
Even though economics be so defined as to exclude a large part of the
field of the social sciences, its scope is still very broad. Economics
is less homogeneous in its content, is far less clearly defined, than
is any one of the natural sciences. A very general definition of
economics is: The study of men engaged in making a living. More fully
expressed, economics is a study of men exercising their own powers and
making use of their environment for the purposes of existence, of
welfare, and of enjoyment. Within such a broad definition of economics
is found room for various narrower conceptions. To mention only the
more important of these we may distinguish individual economics,
domestic economics, business economics, governmental economics (public
finance), and political (or national) economics. Any one of these
subjects may be approached and treated primarily either with regard to
its more immediate financial, material, acquisitive aspects, or to its
more far-reaching social, psychical, and welfare aspects. These
various ideas appear and reappear most confusingly in economic
literature.
The aims that different students and teachers have in the pursuit of
economics are as varied as are the conceptions of its nature. The
teaching aims are, indeed, largely determined by those conceptions.
Moreover, the teaching aims are modified by still other conditions,
such as the environment of the college and its constituency, and such
as the temperament, business experience, and scholarly training of the
teacher. We may distinguish broadly three aims: the vocational, the
civic, and the cultural.
_The vocational aim_ is the most elementary and most usual. Xenophon's
treatise on domestic "economy" was the nucleus from which have grown
all the systematic formulations of economic principles. Vocational
economics is the economics of the craftsman and of the shop. Every
practical craft and art has its economic aspect, which concerns the
right and best use of labor and valuable materials to attain a certain
artistic, mechanical, or other technical end in its particular field.
Economics is not mere technology, which has to do with the mastery of
materials and forces to attain any material end. Vocational economics,
however, modifies and determines technical practice, which, in the
last analysis, is subject to the economic rule. The economic engineer
should construct not the best bridge that is possible, mechanically
considered, but the best possible or advisable for the purpose and
with the means at hand. The economic agriculturist should not produce
the largest crop possible, but the crop that gives the largest
additional value. The rapidly growing recognition of the importance,
in all technical training, of cultivating the ability to take the
economic view has led to the development of household economics in
connection with the teaching of cooking, sewing, decorating, etc.; of
the economics of farm management to supplement the older technical
courses in natural science, crops, and animal husbandry; of the
economics of factory management in connection with mechanical
engineering; of the economics of railway location in connection with
certain phases of civil engineering; and many more such special
groupings and formulations of economic principles with reference to
particular vocations and industries.
The ancient and the medieval crafts and mysteries undoubtedly had
embodied in their maxims, proverbs, traditional methods, and
teachings, many economic principles suitable to their comparatively
simple and unchanging conditions. The rapid changes that have
occurred, especially in the last half century, in the natural sciences
and in the practical arts have rendered useless much of this wisdom of
the fathers. Recently there has been a belated and sudden awakening to
the need of studying, consciously and systematically, the economic
aspects of the new dynamic forces and industrial conditions. Hence
the almost dramatic appearance of vocational, or technical, economics
under such names as "scientific management" and the "economics of
engineering." Viewed in this perspective such a development appears to
be commendable and valuable in its main purpose. Unfortunately, some,
if not all, of the adherents of this new cult of "economy" and
"efficiency" fail to appreciate how very restricted and special it is,
compared with the whole broad economic field.
_The civic aim_ in teaching economics is to fit the student to perform
the duties of a citizen. We need not attempt to prove here that a
large proportion of public questions are economic in nature, and that
in a democracy a wise decision on these questions ultimately depends
on an intelligent public opinion and not merely on the knowledge
possessed by a small group of specialists.
The civic conception of economics, seen from one point of view, shows
little in common with the vocational conception. Yet from another
point of view it may be looked upon as the vocational conception "writ
large" and is the art of training men to be citizens in a republic.
Good citizenship involves an attitude of interest, a capacity to form
judgments on public economic issues, and, if need be, to perform
efficiently public functions of a legislative, executive or judicial
nature. The state-supported colleges usually now recognize very
directly their obligation to provide economic training with the civic
aim, and, in some cases, even to require it as a part of the work for
a college degree. Often also is found the thought that it is the duty
of the student while obtaining an education at public expense, to take
a minimum of economics with the civic aim even if he regards it as in
no way to his individual advantage or if it has in his case no direct
vocational bearings. In the privately endowed institutions this policy
may be less clearly formulated, but it is hardly less actively
practiced. Indeed, the privately endowed institutions have been
recognizing more and more fully their fiduciary and public nature.
Their public character is involved in their charters, in their
endowments, in their exemption from taxation, and in their essential
educational functions. The proudest pages in their history are those
recording their services to the state.[15]
=Evaluations of aims of teaching economics in college=
_The cultural aim_ in economics is to enable the student to comprehend
the industrial world about him. It aims to liberate the mind from
ignorance and prejudice, giving him insight into, and appreciation of,
the industrial world in which he lives. In this aspect it is a liberal
study. Economics produces in some measure this cultural result, even
when it is studied primarily with the vocational or with the civic
aim. But in vocational economics the choice of materials and the mode
of treatment are deliberately restricted by the immediate utilitarian
purposes; and in economic teaching with a civic purpose there is the
continual temptation to arouse the sympathies for an immediate social
program and to take a view limited by the contemporary popular
interest in specific proposals for reform. Economics at its highest
level is the search for truth. It has its place in any system of
higher education as has pure natural science, apart from any immediate
or so far as we may know, any possible, utilitarian application. It is
a disinterested philosophy of the industrial world. Though it may not
demonstrably be a _means_ to other useful things, it is itself a
worthy _end_. It helps to enrich the community with the immaterial
goods of the spirit, and it yields the psychic income of dignity and
joy in the individual and national life. And as a final appeal to any
doubting Philistine it may be said that just as the cult of pure
science is necessary to the continual and most effective progress in
the practical arts, so the study of economics on the philosophical
plane surely is necessary to the highest and most lasting results in
the application of economics to the arts and to civic life.
The differences in aims set forth in this paragraph result in much of
the futile discussion in recent years regarding methods of teaching.
Enthusiastic innovators have debated at cross purposes about teaching
methods as if they were to be measured by some absolute standard of
pedagogic values, not recognizing that the chief differences of views
as to teaching methods were rooted in the differing aims. This truth
will reappear at many points in the following discussion. "What will
you have," quoth the Gods, "pay the price and take it."
=Place of economics in the college curriculum=
The place assigned to economics in the college curriculum in respect
to the year in which the student is admitted to its study is very
different in various colleges. In the last investigation of the
subject it appeared that the first economics course might be taken
first
in the freshman year in 14 per cent of cases,
in the sophomore year in 31 per cent of cases,
in the junior year in 42 per cent of cases,
in the senior year in 13 per cent of cases.[16]
Among those institutions giving an economic course in the freshman
year are some small and some large institutions (some of the latter
being Stanford, New York University, Pennsylvania, Bryn Mawr, and the
state universities of California, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Colorado, Utah). Frequently the elementary course given to freshmen is
in matter and method historical and descriptive, rather than
theoretical, and is planned to precede a more rigid course in the
principles.[17]
The plan of beginning economics in the sophomore year is the mode
among the state universities and larger colleges, including nearly all
of the larger institutions that do not begin the subject in the
freshman year. This group includes Yale, Hopkins, Chicago,
Northwestern, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, Vassar, and (after 1919)
Princeton.
The group of institutions beginning economics in the junior year is
the largest, but consists mostly of small colleges having some
advanced economics courses, but no more than can be given in the
senior year. It contains, besides, a few colleges of arts which
maintain a more strictly prescribed curriculum for underclassmen
(freshmen and sophomores), such as Dartmouth, Columbia, Smith, and
Simmons. It should be observed also that in a great many institutions,
where economics may be taken by some students in the first two years,
it is in fact scheduled as late as junior or senior year in the
prescribed courses of students in special departments such as
agriculture, engineering, and law. This statement applies doubtless to
many thousands of technical students.[18]
In view of these divergencies in practice we must hesitate to declare
that the subject should be begun at precisely this or that point in
the college course. These differences, to be sure, are in many cases
the result of accidental factors in the college curriculum, and often
have been determined by illogical departmental rivalries within the
faculty rather than by wise and disinterested educators studying the
merits of the case. But in large part these differences are the
expression of different purposes and practical needs in planning a
college curriculum, and are neither quite indefensible nor necessarily
contradictory in pedagogic theory. In the small college with a nearly
uniform curriculum and with limited means, a general course is perhaps
best planned for the senior year, or in the junior year if there is an
opportunity given to the student to do some more advanced work the
year following. At the other extreme are some larger institutions in
which the pressure of new subjects within the arts curriculum has
shattered the fixed curriculum into fragments. This has made possible
specialization along any one of a number of lines. Where this idea is
carried out to the full, every general group of subjects eventually
must make good its claim to a place in the freshman year for its
fundamental course. But inasmuch as, in most institutions, the
freshman year is still withheld from this free elective plan by the
requirement of a small group of general subjects, economics is first
open to students in the sophomore year. The license of the elective
system is of course much moderated by the requirement to elect a
department, usually at the beginning either of the sophomore or of the
junior year, and within each department both a more or less definite
sequence of courses and a group of collateral requirements are usually
enforced. Where resources are very limited it is probably best to give
the economics course in the last two years, but where several more
specialized courses in economics are given, it should be introduced as
early as the sophomore year. If a freshman course in the subject is
given it should be historical, descriptive, or methodical (e.g.,
statistical methods, graphics, etc.) rather than theoretical. The
experience (or lack of experience) and knowledge of the industrial
world, past and present, possessed by the average American college
student is such that courses of that kind meet a great need.[19]
=Time to be given to economics in a college curriculum=
Teachers of economics today are doubtless attempting the impossible in
compressing the present "general course" into three hours for two
semesters. No other department of a university attempts to treat in
such a brief time so broad a subject, including both principles and
applications. Such a course was quite long enough in the days when all
economic instruction was given by gray-haired theologians, philosophers,
mathematicians, and linguists, dogmatically expounding the _pons asinorum_
of economics, and quizzing from a dusty textbook of foreign authorship.
But now the growing and vigorous tribe of specialized economic teachers is
bursting with information and illustrations. Moreover, the range of
economic topics and of economic interests has expanded wonderfully.
The resulting overcrowded condition of the general course is possibly
the main cause of the difficulties increasingly felt by teachers in
handling that course satisfactorily. As a part of a general college
curriculum "general economics" cannot be satisfactorily treated in
less than three hours a week for two years. The additional time should
not be spent in narrow specialization but rather in getting a broader
understanding of the subject through economic history and geography,
through observation and description of actual conditions, through a
greater use of problems and examples, and through more detailed, less
superficial study of the fundamental principles. As a part of sixteen
years of the whole educational scheme from primary grade to college
diploma such a course would claim but 2-1/2 per cent of the student's
whole time, while the subjects of English, mathematics, and foreign
linguistics each gets about 20 per cent, in the case even of students
who do not specialize in one of these branches.
Of the replies[20] from nearly three hundred colleges to the question
whether economics was required for graduation, about 55 per cent were in
the affirmative. Unfortunately the question was ambiguous, and the
replies apparently were understood to mean generally that it was
required in one or more curricula, not of all graduates (though in some
cases the question was probably taken in the other sense). It is
noteworthy that more frequently economics is required in the smaller
colleges having but one curriculum, that of liberal studies. In the
larger institutions economics is usually not required of students in the
humanities, although of late it has increasingly been made a part of the
technical college curricula, especially in engineering and
agriculture.[21] So we are in a fair way to arrive at the situation
where no student except in those "liberal" arts courses can get a
college diploma without studying economics; only in a modern course in
the humanities may the study of human society be left out.
The economists have not been active in urging their subject as a
requirement. The call for increasing requirements in economics has
come from the public and from the alumni. The steady increase in the
number of students electing economic courses without corresponding
additions to the teaching forces has made the overworked professors of
the subject thankful when nothing more was done to increase by faculty
requirements the burden of their class work. It is charged and it is
admitted in some institutions that the standards of marking are
purposely made more severe in the economics courses than in courses in
most other subjects. The purpose avowed is "to cut out the dead
timber," so that only the better students will be eligible for
enrollment in the advanced economics courses. An unfortunate result is
to discourage some excellent students, ambitious for high marks or
honors, from electing courses in economics because thereby their
average grades would be reduced. In many cases, for this reason, good
students take the subject optionally (without credit), though doing
full work in it.
=Organization of the subject in the college curriculum=
We have already, in discussing the place of economics, necessarily
touched upon the organization of the courses. In most colleges this
organization is very simple. The whole economic curriculum consists of
the "general" course, or at most of that plus one or more somewhat
specialized courses given the next year. The most usual year of
advanced work consists of one semester each of money and banking and
of public finance. A not unusual plan, well suited to the situation
in a small college where economics takes the full time of one teacher,
is to give the general course in the sophomore year, and to offer a
two-year cycle of advanced work, the two courses being given in
alternate years, the class consisting of juniors and seniors. In this
plan the additional courses may be in transportation, in labor
problems, in trusts and corporations, and frequently of late, in
accounting. Ordinarily the "general" course itself involves a logical
sequence, the first term dealing with fundamental concepts and
theories, and the second term covering in a rapid survey a pretty wide
range of special problems. The majority of the students take only the
general course. Those who go on to more advanced courses retrace the
next year some of the ground of the second semester's work, but this
is probably for few of them a loss of time. Indeed, in such a subject
as economics this opportunity to let first teachings "sink in," and
strange concepts become familiar, is for most students of great value.
Yet the plan was adopted and is followed as a compromise, using one
course as a ready-made fit for the differing needs of two groups of
students. We have seen above (page 221) that preceding the general, or
systematic, course, there is in a number of colleges a simpler one. In
some cases[22] the experiment has been undertaken of studying first
for a time certain broad institutional features of our existing
society, such as property, the wage system, competition, and the
amount and distribution of wealth. The need of such a course is said
to be especially great in the women's colleges. If so, it is truly
urgent, for most young men come to college with very meager experience
in economic lines. Few, if any, teachers would deny that such an
introductory course preceding the principles is distinctly of
advantage.[23] Some would favor it even at the price of shortening
materially the more general course. But most teachers would agree that
together the introductory course and the general course should take
two full years (three hours a week, twelve college credit hours, as
usually reckoned), an amount of time which cannot be given by the
"floater" electing economics. And to accommodate both those who have
had the introductory course and those who have not, the general course
would have to be given in two divisions and in two ways. Again we come
to the thought, suggested above, that probably we are attempting too
much in too brief a time in the general course today. A longer time
for the study would permit of a sequence that would be more logically
defensible. It would begin with historical and descriptive studies,
both because they are fundamentally necessary and because, being of
more concrete nature, they may be given in a form easier for the
beginner to get. In this period a good deal of the terminology can be
gradually familiarized. Then should come the more elementary
analytical studies and fundamental principles, followed by a
discussion of a number of practical problems. In conclusion should
come a more systematic survey of general principles, of which most
students now get but a superficial idea. The work in the specialized
elective courses would then be built upon much firmer foundation than
is the case at present.
=Methods of teaching=
The main methods that have been developed and tested in the teaching
of undergraduate classes in economics may be designated as the lecture
method, the textbook method, the problem method. Any one of these may
be used well-nigh exclusively, or, as is more usual, two or more may
be combined in varying proportions; e.g., lectures with
"supplementary" (or "collateral") readings, with or without an
occasional meeting in a quiz section. Along with these main methods
often are used such supplementary methods as topical reports requiring
individual library work; laboratory exercises, as in statistics,
accounting, etc.; individual field work to study some industrial
problem; and visits, as a class, and with guidance, to factories and
industrial enterprises.
The choice of these particular methods of teaching is, however,
largely conditioned by the teacher's antecedent choice between the
deductive or the inductive forms of presentation. This is an old
controversy ever recurring. But it should be observed that the
question here is not whether induction or deduction is a greater aid
in arriving at new truth, but it is whether the inductive or the
deductive process is the better for the imparting of instruction to
beginners. In teaching mathematics, the most deductive of the
sciences, use may be made of such inductive aids as object lessons,
physical models, and practical problems; and _per contra_, in the
natural sciences, where induction is the chief instrument of research,
elementary instruction is largely given in a deductive manner by the
statement of general propositions, the workings of which are then
exemplified. The decision of the question which is the better of these
two pedagogic methods in a particular case, depends (_a_) partly on
the average maturity and experience of the class; (_b_) partly on the
mental quality of the students; and (_c_) partly on the interest and
qualifications of the teacher.
(_a_) The choice of the best method of teaching is of course dependent
on the same factors that have been shown above to affect the nature
and sequence of the courses. The simpler method leading to more
limited results is more suitable for the less mature classes; but the
scientific stage in the treatment of any subject is not reached until
general principles are discussed. If one is content with a vocational
result in economic teaching, stopping short of the theoretical,
philosophic outlook, more can be accomplished in a short time by the
concrete method. But such teaching would seem to belong in a trade
school rather than in a college of higher studies, and in any case
should be given by a vocational teacher rather than by a specialist in
social, or political, economy.
=Various methods evaluated=
(_b_) Every college class presents a gradation of minds capable
(whether from nature or training) of attaining different states of
comprehension. Of students in the lower half of the classes in
American colleges, it may be said broadly that they never can or will
develop the capacity of thinking abstractly and that the concrete
method of teaching would give better results in their cases. Therefore
the teacher attempts to compromise, to adopt a method that fits the
"mode," the middle third of the class, wasting much of the time of the
brighter (or of the more earnest) students, and letting those in the
lowest third trail along as best they can. This difficulty may be met
with some success where there are several sections of a class by
grouping the men in accordance with their previous scholarship
records. This grouping is beneficial alike to those lower and to those
higher than the average in scholarship.
(_c_) Quite as important in this connection as this subjective quality
of the students, is the characteristic quality of the teacher. A
particular teacher will succeed better or worse with any particular
method according as it fits his aim and is in accord with his
endowment and training. If he is himself of the "hard-headed"
unimaginative or unphilosophic type, he will of course deem effort
wasted that goes beyond concrete facts. He will give little place to
the larger aspects and principles of "political" economy, but will
deal exhaustively with the details of commercial economy. If the
teacher is civic-minded and sympathetic, he will be impelled to trace
economic forces, in their actions and interactions, far beyond the
particular enterprise, to show how the welfare of others is affected.
To do this rightly, knowledge of the conditions must be combined with
a deeper theoretical insight; but the civic aim operates selectively
to limit the choice of materials and analysis to those contemporary
issues that appeal at the time to the textbook writer, to the teacher,
or to the public. Still different is the case of the teacher who finds
his greatest joy in the theoretical aspects of economics, possesses a
clean-cut economic philosophy (even though it may not be ultimate
truth), and has faith in economics as a disciplinary subject. Such a
teacher will (other things being equal) have, relatively, his greatest
success with the students of greatest ability; he will get better
results in teaching the "principles" than in teaching historical and
descriptive facts. None will deny that this type of education has an
important place. Even in the more descriptive courses appeal should be
made to the higher intellectual qualities of the class, leaving a
lasting disciplinary result rather than a memory stored with merely
ephemeral and mostly insignificant information.
The teacher with colorless personality and without interest in, and
knowledge of, the world of reality, will fail, whatever be the purpose
of his teaching. The higher the teacher's aim, the farther may he fall
below its attainment. A college teacher whose message is delivered on
the mental level of grammar school children should, of course, score a
pretty high percentage of success in giving a passing mark to
sophomores, juniors, and seniors in American colleges. But is this
really a success, or is it rather not evidence of a failure in the
whole school curriculum, and of woful waste in our system of so-called
"higher" education? Are colleges for the training of merely mediocre
minds?
=Aim and attitude more fundamental than method of instruction=
These questions of aim and of attitude are more fundamental than is
the question of the particular device of instruction to be used, as
lecture, textbook, etc. Yet the latter question is not without its
importance. In general it appears that practice has moved and still
moves in a cycle. In the American college world as a whole each
particular college repeats some or all of the typical phases with the
growth of its economic department.
(1) First is the textbook, with recitations in small classes. (2)
Next, the lecture gradually takes a larger place as the classes grow,
until, supplemented by required readings, it becomes the main tool of
instruction, this being the cheapest and easiest way to take care of
the rapidly growing enrollment. (3) Then, when this proves
unsatisfactory, the lectures are perhaps cut down to two a week, and
the class is divided into quiz sections for one meeting a week under
assistants or instructors, the lecture still being the main center of
the scheme of teaching. (4) This still being unsatisfactory (partly
because it lacks oversight of the students' daily work, and partly
because the lecture is unsuited to the development of general
principles that require careful and repeated study for their mastery),
a textbook is made the basis of section meetings, held usually twice a
week, and the lectures are reduced to one a week, given to the
combined class, and so changed in character as to be merely
supplementary to the class work. The lectures are given either in
close connection week by week with the class work or bearing only a
general relation with the term's work as a whole. This may be deemed
the prevailing mode today in institutions where the introductory
course has a large enrollment.[24] (5) Another change completes the
cycle; the lecture is dropped and the class is divided, each section,
consisting of twenty to thirty students, meeting with the same teacher
regularly for class work. This change was made after mature
consideration in "the College" in Columbia University; is in operation
in Chicago University, where the meetings are held five times a week;
and has been adopted more recently still in New York University. There
have been for years evidences of the growing desire to abolish the
lecture from the introductory course and also to limit its use in some
of the special undergraduate courses. The preceptorial plan adopted in
1905 by Princeton University is the most notable instance of the
latter change.[25] Even in graduate teaching in economics there has
been a growing opinion and practice favorable to the "working" course
or "seminar" course to displace lecture courses.[26] Thus the lecture
seems likely to play a less prominent role, especially in the
introductory courses, but it is not likely to be displaced entirely in
the scheme of instruction.
=Selection of a textbook=
Numerous American textbooks on political economy (thirty, it is said)
have been published in the last quarter of a century, a fact which has
now and then been deplored by the pessimistic critic.[27] Few share
this opinion, however. The textbooks have, to be sure, often served,
not to unfold a consistent system of thought, but to reveal the lack
of one. But they have afforded to the teachers and students, in a
period of developing conceptions on the subjects, a wide choice of
treatment of the principles much more exactly worked out and carefully
expressed than is possible through the medium of lectures as recorded
in the students' hastily written notes.
Questions, exercises, and test problems are widely used as supplementary
material for classroom discussion.[28] Separately printed collections of
such material date back at least to W. G. Sumner's _Problems in
Political Economy_ (1884), which in turn acknowledged indebtedness to
other personal sources and to Milnes' collection of two thousand
questions and problems from English examination papers. With somewhat
varying aims, further commented upon below, and in varying degrees, all
teachers of economics now make use of such questions in their teaching
of both general and special courses. Unquestionably there are, in the
use of the problem method, possibilities for good which few teachers
have fully realized.[29]
The selection and arrangement of materials for supplementary readings
is guided by various motives, more or less intermingling. It may be
chiefly to parallel a systematic text by extracts taken largely from
the older "classics" of the subject (as in C. J. Bullock's _Selected
Readings in Economics_, 1907); or to provide additional concrete
material bearing mostly upon present economic problems (as in the
author's _Source Book in Economics_, 1912); or to supplement a set of
exercises and problems (as in F. M. Taylor's _Some Readings in
Economics_, 1907); or to constitute of itself an almost independent
textbook of extracts, carefully edited with original introductions to
chapters (as Marshall, Wright, and Field's _Materials for the Study of
Elementary Economics_, 1913, and W. H. Hamilton's _Readings in Current
Economic Problems_, 1914).
Whatever be the particular tool of instruction, whether lecture,
textbook with classroom discussion, problem study, or collateral
readings, its use may be very different according as the teacher seeks
to develop the subject positively or negatively, to present a single
definite and (if he can) coherent body of doctrines, or a variety of
opinions that have been held, among which the student is encouraged to
choose. Evidently the conditions determining choice in the case of
advanced courses are different from those in the introductory course.
For the beginner time is required in order that economic principles
may sink in, and so he is bewildered if at first he is introduced to a
number of theories by different authors. Materials that supplement the
general course of principles should therefore be limited to subject
matter that is descriptive, concrete, and illustrative. The beginner,
somewhat dazed with the variety of new facts, ideas, terminology, and
problems in the field into which he has entered, needs guidance to
think clearly step by step about them.[30] Not until the pupil has
learned to see and apprehend the simpler economic phenomena near him
can he be expected to survey the broader fields and to form
independent judgments concerning complex situations. He must creep
before he can run. In fact, teachers are often self-deceived when they
imagine that they are leaving students to judge for themselves among
various opinions or to find their way inductively to their own
conclusions. The recitation, in truth, becomes the simple game of "hot
and cold." The teacher has in mind what he considers the right answer;
the groping student tries to guess it; and as he ventures this or that
inexpert or lucky opinion he is either gently chided or encouraged.
At length some bright pupil wins the game by agreeing with the
teacher's theretofore skilfully concealed opinion. This is called
teaching by the inductive method.
Undoubtedly it is more desirable to develop in the student the ability
to think independently about economic questions than it is to drill
him into an acceptance of ready-made opinions on contemporary
practical issues. The more fundamental economic theory--the more
because its bearing on pecuniary and class interests is not close or
obvious--is an admirable organ for the development of the student's
power of reasoning. But to give the student this training it is not
necessary to keep him in the dark as to what he is to learn. The
Socratic method is still unexcelled in the discussion of a text and of
lectures in which propositions are clearly laid down and explained.
The theorem in geometry is first stated, and then the student is
conducted step by step through the reasoning leading to that
conclusion. Should not the student of economics have presented to him
in a similar way the idea or principle, and then be required to follow
the reasoning upon which it is based? Then, through questions and
problems,--the more the better, if time permits of their thorough
discussion and solution,--the student may be exercised in the
interpretation of the principles, and by illustrations drawn from
history and contemporary conditions may be shown the various
applications of the principle to practical problems. To get and hold
the student's _interest_, to fascinate him with the subject, is equal
in importance to the method, for without interest good results are
impossible.[31]
=Tests or teaching results=
It must be confessed that no exact objective measure of the efficiency
of teaching methods in economics has been found. At best we have
certain imperfect indices, among which are the formal examination, the
student's own opinion at the close of the course, and the student's
revised opinion after leaving college.
The primary purpose of the traditional examination is not to test the
relative merits of the different methods of teaching, but to test the
relative merits of the various students in a class, whatever be the
method of teaching. Every teacher knows that high or low average marks
in an entire class are evidences rather of the standard that he is
setting than it is of the merits of his teaching methods,--though in
some cases he is able to compare the results obtained after using two
different methods of exposition for the same subject. But, as was
indicated above, such a difference may result from his own temperament
and may point only to the method that he can best use, not to the best
absolutely considered. Moreover, the teacher may make the average
marks high or low merely by varying the form and content of the
examination papers or the strictness of his markings.
Each ideal and method of teaching has its corresponding type of
examination. Descriptive and concrete courses lend themselves
naturally to memory tests; theoretical courses lend themselves to
problems and reasoning. A high type of question is one whose proper
answer necessitates knowledge of the facts acquired in the course
together with an interpretation of the principles and their
application to new problems. Memory tests serve to mark off "the sheep
from the goats" as regards attention and faithful work; reasoning
tests serve to give a motive for disciplinary study and to measure its
results. It may perhaps seem easier to test the results of the
student's work in memory subjects; but even as to that we know that
there are various types of memory and how much less significant are
marks obtained by "the cramming process" than are equally good marks
obtained as a result of regular attention to daily tasks.
The students' revised and matured judgment of the value of their
various college studies generally differ, often greatly, from their
judgments while taking or just after completing the courses. Yet even
years afterward can man judge rightly in his own case just what has
been the relative usefulness to him of the different elements of his
complex college training, or of the different methods employed?[32]
But the evidence that comes from the most successful alumni to the
college teacher in economics is increasingly to the effect that the
college work they have come to value most is that which "teaches the
student to think." Our judgments in this matter are influenced by the
larger educational philosophy that we hold. Each will have his
standard of spiritual values.
=Moot questions in economics affecting the teaching of the subject=
The moot questions in the teaching of the subject have, perhaps, been
sufficiently indicated, but we may here add a word as to the bearings
which certain moot questions in the theory of the subject may have on
the methods of teaching. The fundamental theory of economics has,
since the days of Adam Smith, been undergoing a process of continuous
transition, but the broader concepts never have been more in dispute
than in the last quarter century in America. The possibility of such
diversity of opinion in the fundamentals among the leading exponents
of the subject argues strongly that economics is still a philosophy--a
general attitude of mind and system of opinion--rather than a positive
science. At best it is a "becoming science" which never can cease
entirely to have a speculative, or philosophic character. This is not
the place to go into details of matters in controversy. Suffice it to
say that in rivalry to the older school--which is variously designated
Ricardian, Orthodox, English, or classical--newer ideas have been
developed, dating from the work of the Austrian economists, of Jevons,
and of J. B. Clark in the last decades of the nineteenth century. The
older school had sought the explanation of value and the theory of
distribution in objective factors,--partly in the chemical qualities
of the soil, partly in labor, partly in the costs (or outlays) of the
employing class. The psychological factor in value had been almost
eliminated from this older treatment of value and price, or at best
was imperfectly recognized under the name of "utility." The newer
school made the psychological element primary in the positive
treatment of economic principles, and launched a negative criticism
against the older terms and ideas that effectively exposed their
unsoundness considered separately and their inconsistency as a system
of economic thought. Both the negative criticisms and the proposed
amendments taken one by one gained wide acceptance among economists.
But when it came to embodying them in a general theory of economics,
many economists have balked.[33] Most of the American texts in
economics and much of our teaching show disastrous effects of this
confusion and irresolution. The newer concepts, guardedly admitted to
have some validity, appear again and again in the troubled discussions
of recent textbook writers, which usually end with a rejection, "on
the whole," of the logical implications of these newer concepts. Many
teachers thus have lost their grip on any coordinating theory of
distribution. They no longer have any general economic philosophy. The
old Ricardian cock-sureness had its pedagogic merits. Without faith,
teaching perishes. The complaints of growing difficulty in the
teaching of the introductory course seem to have come particularly
from teachers that are in this unhappy state of mind. They declare
that it is impossible longer to interest students successfully in a
general theoretical course, and they are experimenting with all kinds
of substitutes--de-nicotinized tobacco and Kaffee Hag--from which
poisonous theory has been extracted. At the same time, economics "with
a punch in it," economics "with a back bone," is being taught by
strong young teachers of the new faith more successfully, perhaps,
than economics has ever been taught in the past. This greater question
of the teacher's conception of economics dominates all the minor
questions of method. Economics cannot be taught as an integrated
course in principles by teachers without theoretical training and
conceptions; in such hands its treatment is best limited to the
descriptive phases of concrete special problems,--valuable, indeed, as
a background and basis, but never rising to the plane upon which alone
economics is fully worth the student's while as a college subject.
FRANK ALBERT FETTER
_Princeton University_
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The literature on the teaching of economics in the secondary schools,
its need and its proper scope and method, is somewhat extensive.
Another goodly group of articles discusses the teaching of economic
history and of other social sciences related to economics, either in
high schools or colleges. A somewhat smaller group pertains to
graduate instruction in the universities. The following brief list of
titles, arranged chronologically, is most pertinent to our present
purpose:
"The Relation of the Teaching of Economic History to the Teaching of
Political Economy" (pages 88-101), and "Methods of Teaching Economics"
(pages 105-111), _A. E. A. Economic Studies_, Vol. 3, 1898.
Proceedings of a conference on the teaching of elementary economics,
_Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 17, December, 1909.
TAYLOR, F. M. "Methods of Teaching Elementary Economics," _Journal of
Political Economy_. Vol. 17, December, 1909, page 688.
WOLFE, A. B. "Aim and Content of a College Course in Elementary
Economics," _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 17, December, 1909,
page 673.
Symposium by Carver, Clark, Seager, Seligman, Nearing, _et al._,
_Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 18, 1910.
Report of the Committee on the Teaching of Economics, _Journal of
Political Economy_, Vol. 19, 1911, pages 760-789.
ROBINSON, L. N. "The Seminar in the Colleges," _Journal of Political
Economy_, Vol. 21, 1913, page 643.
WOLFE, A. B. "The Aim and Content of the Undergraduate Economics
Curriculum," _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 21, 1913, page 1.
PERSONS, CHARLES E. "Teaching the Introductory Course in Economics,"
_Quarterly Journal of Economics_, November, 1916.
Footnotes:
[15] See article by Charles E. Persons, on Teaching the Introductory
Course in Economics, in _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ Vol. XXXI,
November, 1916, for a strong presentation of this civic ideal in
economic study.
[16] Compiled by the writer from data in the report of the committee
appointed by the conference on the teaching of elementary economics,
1909; _Journal of Political Economy_, November, 1911, Vol. 19, pages
760-789.
[17] See page 767 of the committee report cited above.
[18] Evidently it is not possible to draw from these data any definite
conclusions as to the proportion of students beginning economics in
each of the four years respectively. But probably three-fourths of
all, possibly four-fifths, take the general course either in the
sophomore or the junior year. Most of the institutions giving
economics only in the senior year are small, with a very restricted
curriculum, often limited to one general course. But it is a widely
observed fact that many students in large institutions postpone the
election of the subject till their senior year.
[19] Of this see further below, page 226.
[20] Article cited, _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 19, page 768.
[21] The society for the Promotion of Engineering Education has had a
standing committee on economics, since 1915. The first committee was
composed of three engineers (all of them consulting and in practice
and two of them also teachers) and the present writer.
[22] In Amherst, as described in _Journal of Political Economy_ by
Professor W. H. Hamilton, on "The Amherst Program in Economics"; and
in Chicago University beginning in 1916. See also, by the same writer,
a paper on "The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory", in the
_American Economic Review_, Supplement, page 309, March, 1919.
[23] At the meeting of the American Economic Association in 1897, at
which was discussed "The Relation of the Teaching of Economic History
to the Teaching of Political Economy," the opinion was expressed by
one teacher that economic history should follow the general course.
But all the others agreed that such a course should begin the
sequence, and this seems to be the almost invariable practice. See
_Economic Studies_, Volume III. pages 88-101, Publications of the
American Economic Association, 1898.
[24] This plan has at various times been followed at Stanford,
Cornell, Harvard, and Princeton, to cite only a few of the numerous
examples.
[25] In this plan the sections are small (three to seven students) and
the preceptor is expected to give much time to the personal
supervision of the student's reading, reports, and general
scholarship. The preceptorial work is rated at more than half of the
entire work of the term. The one great difficulty of the preceptorial
system is its cost.
[26] A strong plea is made for the "retirement of the lectures" by C.
E. Persons, in the _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, Vol. XXXI,
"Teaching the Introductory Course in Economics," November, 1916, pages
96-98.
[27] Professor J. H. Hollander, _American Economic Review_, Vol. VI,
No. 1, Supplement (March, 1916), page 135. See dissenting opinions in
the discussion that followed.
[28] Professor C. E. Persons (art. cited page 86, November, 1916)
gives the titles of ten separate books or pamphlets of this kind;
since which date have appeared the author's "Manual of References and
Exercises," Parts I and II, to accompany _Economic Principles_, 1915,
and _Modern Economic Problems_, 1916, respectively.
[29] Among those most elaborately developing this method has been
Professor F. M. Taylor of the University of Michigan. See his paper on
the subject and discussion in the _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol.
VII, pages 688-703 (December, 1909). Marshall, Wright, and Field
published the _Outline of Economics_, developed as a series of
problems in 1910, which they used for a time as the main tool of
instruction in the introductory course in Chicago University.
[30] A thoughtful discussion of some phases of this problem is given
by Persons, art. cited, pages 98 ff., favoring the more positive
treatment with less distracting multiplicity of detail.
[31] To a former student of mine and now a successful teacher, Dean J.
R. Turner of New York University, I am indebted for the suggestion of
the following practical rules, a few among many possible, which should
be helpful to younger teachers:
(_a_) Keep the student expecting a surprise, afraid to relax attention
for fear of missing something.
(_b_) By Socratic method lead him into error, then have him (under
cross fire and criticism of class) reason his way out.
(_c_) Make fallacious argument, then call for criticism giving
distinction to him who renders best judgment.
(_d_) Set tasks and have members of class compete in intellectual
contests.
(_e_) Make sure that each principle learned is seen in its
relationship to practical affairs.
(_f_) Enliven each dry principle with an anecdote or illustration to
elucidate it, for principles devoid of interesting features cannot
secure attention and so will not be remembered.
(_g_) Accompany the discussion with charts and board work to visualize
facts and questions to stimulate thought.
(_h_) Ask questions and so handle the class discussions that a few
will not do all the talking, that foreign subject matter is not
introduced, that a consistent and logical development of thought is
strictly adhered to.
(_i_) The last few minutes of the period might well be devoted to the
assignment for the next meeting. The best manner of assignment must
depend upon the nature of task, the advancement of the student, the
purpose in view.
[32] An interesting study made by the department of education of
Harvard University of the teaching methods and results in the
department of economics was referred to in President Lowell's report.
According to the answers of the alumni their work in economics is now
valued mainly for its civic and disciplinary results (these do not
seem to have been further distinguished). In the introductory course
reading was ranked first, class work next, and lectures least, in
value. In the advanced courses the lecture was ranked higher and class
work lower, but that may be because the lecture plays a more important
role there than in the lower classes. Answers regarding such matters
are at most significant as indicating the relative importance of the
various methods as they have actually been employed in the particular
institution, and have little validity in reference to the work and
methods of other teachers working under other conditions, and with
students having different life aims.
[33] The typical attitude of many economists is expressed about as
follows: It is one thing to give assent to refinements when they are
used in the discussion of some single point of theory, and it is quite
another thing to accept them when one sees how, in their combined
effect, they would carry us away from "the old familiar moorings."
Such a view, it need not be urged, reflects an unscientific state of
mind. The real cause of the rejection of the ideas probably is the
shrinking of over-busy men, in middle life, and absorbed in teaching
and in special problems, from the intellectual task of restudying the
fundamentals and revising many of their earlier formed opinions--to
say nothing of rewriting many of their old lectures and manuscripts.
XI
THE TEACHING OF SOCIOLOGY
=Growth of sociology as a college subject=
The teaching of sociology as a definite college subject in the United
States began at Yale nearly forty-five years ago. Since 1873 it has
been introduced into nearly 200 American colleges, universities,
normal schools, and seminaries. A study of this teaching in 1910
revealed over 700 courses offered to over 8000 undergraduates and 1100
graduate students. It is safe to assume a steady growth during the
last six years. Hence the problem of teaching is of no little concern
to sociologists. The American Sociological Society early recognized
this fact and in 1909 appointed a Committee of Ten to report on
certain aspects of the problem. But that all teachers of sociology
have not grasped the bearing of pedagogy upon their work is clear from
complaints still heard from students that sociology is vague,
indefinite, abstract, dull, or scattered. Not long ago some bright
members of a class were overheard declaring that their professor must
have been struck by a gust of wind which scattered his notes every day
before getting to his desk.
=The pedagogy of sociology the pedagogy of all college subjects=
Sociology is simply a way of looking at the same world of reality
which every other science looks at in its own way. It cannot therefore
depart far from the pedagogical principles tried out in teaching other
subjects. It must utilize the psychology of attention, interest,
drill, the problem method, procedure from the student's known to the
new, etc. The universal pitfalls have been charted for all teachers by
the educational psychologists. In addition, sociology may offer a few
on its own account, partly because it is new, partly because a general
agreement as to the content of fundamentals in sociology courses is
just beginning to make itself felt, partly because there is so far no
really good textbook available as a guide to the beginner.
=Methods of teaching sociology determined by a complex of vital factors=
Specific methods of teaching vary according to individual temperament,
the "set" of the teacher's mind; according to his bias of class,
birth, or training; according to whether he has been formed or
deformed by some strong personality whose disciple he has become;
according to whether he is a radical or a conservative; according to
whether he is the dreamy, idealistic type or whether he hankers after
concrete facts; according to whether sociology is a primary interest
or only an incidental, more or less unwelcome.
Hence part of the difficulty, though by no means all, comes from the
fact that sociology is frequently expounded by men who have received
no specific training themselves in the subject, or who have had the
subject thrust upon them as a side issue. In this connection it is
interesting to note that in 1910 sociology was "given" in only 20
cases by sociology departments, in 63 by combinations of economics,
history, and politics, in 11 by philosophy and psychology, in 2 by
economics and applied Christianity or theology, in 1 by practical
theology!
=Guiding principles in the teaching of sociology--The teacher as keen
analyst, not revivalist=
Whatever the path which led into the sociological field or whatever
the bias of temperament, experience justifies several preliminary
hints for successful teaching. First, avoid the voice, the yearning
manner, and the gesture of the preacher. Sociology needs the
cool-headed analyst rather than the social revivalist. Let the
sentimentalist and the muck-raker stay with their lecture circuits and
the newspapers. The student wants enthusiasm and inspiration rather
than sentimentality.
=Avoiding the formal lecture=
Second, renounce the lecture, particularly with young students. There
is no surer method of blighting the interest of students, of murdering
their minds, and of ossifying the instructor than to persist in the
pernicious habit of the formal lecture. Some men plead large classes
in excuse. If they were honest with themselves they would usually find
that they like large classes as a subtle sort of compliment to
themselves. Given the opportunity to break up a class of two hundred
into small discussion groups they would frequently refuse, on the
score that they would lose a fine opportunity to influence a large
group. Dodge it as you will, the lecture is and will continue to be an
unsatisfactory, even vicious, way of attempting to teach social
science. No reputable university tries to teach economics or politics
nowadays in huge lecture sections. Only an abnormal conceit or abysmal
poverty will prevent sociology departments from doing likewise.
Remember that education is always an exchange, never a free gift.
=Adjusting instruction to the capacities of your students=
Third, do not be afraid to utilize commonplace facts and
illustrations. A successful professor of sociology writes me that he
can remember that what are mere commonplaces now were revelations to
him at twenty-one. Two of the greatest teachers of the nineteenth
century, Faraday and Huxley, attributed their success to the simple
maxim, take nothing for granted. It is safe to assume that most
students come from homes where business and petty neighborhood doings
are the chief concern, and where a broad, well-informed outlook on
life is rare. Since so many of my colleagues insist that young Ph.D.'s
tend constantly to "shoot over the heads" of their students, the best
way of avoiding this particular pitfall seems to lie along the road of
simple, elementary, concrete fact. The discussion method in the
classroom will soon put the instructor right if he has gone to the
other extreme of depreciating his students through kindergarten
methods. Likewise he can guard against being oracular and pedantic by
letting out his superior stores of information through free discussion
in the Socratic fashion. Nothing is more important to good teaching
than the knack of apt illustration. While to a certain extent it can
be taught, just as the art of telling a humorous story or making a
presentation speech can be communicated by teachers of oral English,
yet in the long run it is rather a matter of spontaneous upwellings
from a well-stored mind. For example, suppose a class is studying the
factors of variation and selection in social evolution: the instructor
shows how Nature loves averages, not only by statistics and
experiments with the standard curve of distribution, but also, if he
is a really illuminated teacher, by reference, say, to the legend of
David and Goliath, the fairy tale of _Little One-Eye, Little Two-Eye,
Little Three-Eye_, and Lincoln's famous aphorism to the effect that
the Lord must love the common people because he made so many of them.
Sad experience advises that it is unsafe for an instructor any longer
to assume that college sophomores are familiar with the Old Testament,
classic myths, or Greek and Roman history. Hence he must beware of
using any recondite allusions or illustrations which themselves need
so much explanation that their bearing on the immediate problem in
hand is obscured. An illustration, like a funny story, loses its
pungency if it requires a scholium.
=Pedagogical suggestions summarized=
Fourth, adhere to what a friend calls the 16 to 1 basis--16 parts fact
and 1 part theory. Fifth, eschew the professor's chair. The blackboard
is the teacher's "next friend." Recent time-motion studies lead us to
believe that no man can use a blackboard efficiently unless he stands!
The most celebrated teaching in history was peripatetic. Sixth,
postpone the reconciling of discrepant social theorizings to the
tougher-hided seniors or graduate students, and stick to the
presentation of "accessible realities." Finally, an occasional
friendly meeting with students, say once or twice a semester at an
informal supper, will create an atmosphere of cooperative learning,
will break down the traditional barriers of hostility between master
and pupil, and may incidentally bring to the surface many useful hints
for the framing of discussion problems.
=The course of study--(a) Determined by the maturity of the students=
To a certain extent teaching methods are determined by the age of the
students. In 1910, of all the institutions reporting, 73 stated that
sociology instruction began in the junior year; 23 admitted
sophomores, 4 freshmen, 39 seniors. But the unmistakable drift is in
the direction of introducing sociology earlier in the college
curriculum, and even into secondary and elementary schools. Hence the
cautions voiced above tend to become all the more imperative.
Moreover, while in the past it has been possible to exact history,
economics, political science, philosophy, psychology, or education as
prerequisite to beginning work in sociology, in view of the downward
trend of sociology courses it becomes increasingly more difficult to
take things for granted in the student's preparation. Until the dream
of offering a semester or year of general social science to all
freshmen as the introduction to work in the specialized branches of
social science comes true, the sociologist must communicate to his
elementary classes a sense of the relations between his view of social
phenomena and the aspects of the same phenomena which the historian,
the economist, the political scientist, and the psychologist handle.
=(b) Determined by its aims=
Both the content and methods of sociological instruction are
determined also in part by what its purpose is conceived to be. A
study of the beginnings of teaching this subject in the United States
shows that it was prompted primarily by practical ends. For example,
the American Social Science Association proposal (1878), in so far as
it covered the field of sociology, included only courses on punishment
and reformation of criminals, public and private charities, and
prevention of vice. President White of Cornell in 1871 recommended a
course of practical instruction "calculated to fit young men to
discuss intelligently such important social questions as the best
methods of dealing practically with pauperism, intemperance, crime of
various degrees and among persons of different ages, insanity, idiocy,
and the like." Columbia University early announced that a university
situated in such a city, full of problems at a time when "industrial
and social progress is bringing the modern community face to face with
social questions of the greatest magnitude, the solution of which will
demand the best scientific study and the most honest practical
endeavor," must provide facilities for bringing university study into
connection with practical work. In 1901 definite practical courses
shared honors of first place with the elementary or general course in
college announcements. The situation was practically the same ten
years later. Still more recently Professor Blackmar, one of the
veterans in sociology teaching, worked out rather an elaborate program
of what he called a "reasonable department of sociology for colleges
and universities." In spite of the fact that theoretical, biological,
anthropological, and psychological aspects of the subject were
emphasized, his conclusion was that "the whole aim is to ground
sociology in general utility and social service. It is a preparation
for social efficiency."
=(c) Determined by the social character of the community=
The principle of adaptation to environment comes into play also in the
choice of teaching methods. An urban department can send its students
directly into the field for first-hand observation of industry,
housing, sanitation, congestion, playgrounds, immigration, etc., and
may encourage "supervised field work" as fulfilling course
requirements. But the country or small town department far removed
from large cities must emphasize rural social study, or get its urban
data second hand through print, charts, photographs, or lantern
slides. A semester excursion to the city or to some state charitable
institution adds such a touch of vividness to the routine class work.
But "slumming parties" are to be ruthlessly tabooed, particularly when
featured in the newspapers. Social science is not called upon to make
experimental guinea pigs of the poor simply because of their poverty
and inability to protect themselves.
=The introductory course the vital point of contact between student and
the department=
For many reasons the most serious problems of teaching sociology
center about the elementary or introductory course. Advanced
undergraduate and graduate courses usually stand or fall by the
inherent appeal of their content as organized by the peculiar genius
of the instructor. If the student has been able to weather the storms
of his "Introduction," he will usually have gained enough momentum to
carry him along even against the adverse winds of bad pedagogy in the
upper academic zones. Since the whole purpose of sociology is the very
practical one of giving the student mental tools with which to think
straight on societal problems (what Comte called the "social point of
view"), and since usually only a comparatively small number find it
possible to specialize in advanced courses, the introductory course
assumes what at first sight might seem a disproportionate importance.
Only one or two teachers of sociology, so far as I know, discount the
value of an elementary course. The rest are persuaded of its
fundamental importance, and many, therefore, consider it a breach of
trust to turn over this course to green, untried instructors. Partly
as a recruiting device for their advanced courses, partly from this
sense of duty, they undertake instruction of beginners. But it is
often impossible for the veteran to carry this elementary work: he
must commit it to younger men. For that reason the remainder of this
chapter will be given over to a discussion of teaching methods for
such an elementary course, with younger teachers in mind.
=Teaching suggestions for the introductory course=
First, two or three general hints. It is unwise, to say the least, to
attempt to cover the social universe in one course. Better a few
simple concepts, abundantly illustrated, organized clearly and
systematically. Perhaps it is dangerous to suggest a few recurrent
catch phrases to serve as guiding threads throughout the course, but
that was the secret of the old ballad and the folk tale. Homer and the
makers of fairy tales combined art and pedagogy in their use of
descriptive epithets. Such a phrase as Ward's "struggle for existence
is struggle for structure" might furnish the framework of a whole
course. "Like-mindedness," "interest-groups," "belief-groups," and
"folk-ways" are also convenient refrains.
Nobody but a thoroughgoing pedant will drag his students through two
weeks' lectures and a hundred pages of text at the beginning of the
course in the effort to define sociology and chart all its affinities
and relations with every other science. Twenty minutes at the first
class meeting should suffice to develop an understanding of what the
scientific attitude is and a tentative definition of sociology. The
whole course is its real definition. At the end of the term the very
best way of indicating the relation of sociology to other sciences is
through suggestions about following up the leads obtained in the
course by work in biology, economics, psychology, and other fields.
This correlation of the student's program gives him an intimate sense
of the unity in diversity of the whole range of science.
If the student is to avoid several weeks of floundering, he should be
led directly to observe societal relations in the making. This can
perhaps be accomplished best through assigning a series of four
problems at the first class meetings.
Problem I: To show how each student spins a web of social
relationship. Let him take a sheet of paper, place a circle
representing himself in the middle of it, then add dots and connecting
lines for every individual or institution he forms a contact with
during the next two or three days. He will get a figure looking
something like this:
[Illustration]
Problem II: To show how neighborhoods are socially bound up. Let the
student take a section, say two or three blocks square, in a district
he knows well, and map it,--showing all the contacts. Again he will
get a web somewhat like this:
[Illustration]
These diagrams are adapted from students' reports. If they seem
absurdly simple, it is well to remember that experience reveals the
student's amazing lack of ability to vizualize social relationships
without some such device. These diagrams, however, should serve merely
as the point of departure. Add to them charts showing the sources of
milk and other food supplies of a large city, and a sense of the
interdependence and reciprocity of city and country will develop. Take
a Mercator's projection map of the world and draw the trade routes and
immigration streams to indicate international solidarities. Such
diagrams as the famous health tract "A Day in the Life of a Fly" or
the story of Typhoid Mary are helpful in establishing how closely a
community is bound together.
Problem III: To show the variety and kinds of social activities, i.e.,
activities that bring two or more people into contact. Have the
student note down even the homeliest sorts of such activities, the
butcher, the postman, the messenger boy; insist that he go out and
look instead of guessing or reading; require him to group these
activities under headings which he may work out for himself. He will
usually arrive at three or four, such as getting a living, recreation,
political. It may be wise to ask him to grade these activities as
helpful, harmful, strengthening, or weakening, in order to accustom
him to the idea that sociology must treat of good, bad, and
indifferent objects.
Problem IV: To determine what the preponderant social interests and
activities are as judged by the amount of time men devote to them. Let
the student try a "time budget" for a fortnight. For this purpose
Giddings suggests a large sheet of paper ruled for a wide left-hand
margin and 32 narrow columns: the first 24 columns for hours of the
day, the 25th for the word "daily," and the last seven for the seven
days of the week. In the margin the student writes the names of every
activity of whatever description during the waking hours. This will
furnish excellent training in exact habits of observation and
recording, and inductive generalization. When the summary is made at
the end of the fortnight, the student will have worked for himself the
habitual "planes of interest" along which social activities lie.
At this point he ought to have convinced himself that the subject
matter of sociology is concrete reality, not moonshine. Moreover, he
should be able to lay down certain fundamental marks of a social
group, such as a common impulse to get together, common sentiments,
ideas, and beliefs, reciprocal service. From the discovery of habitual
planes of interest (self-maintenance, self-perpetuation,
self-assertion, self-subordination, etc.) it is a simple step to show
diagrammatically how each interest impels an activity, which tends to
precipitate itself into a social habit or institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INNER URGE OR INTEREST | MOTOR EXPRESSION IN | RESULTANT GROUP HABIT
(INSTINCT OR | ACTIVITY | OR INSTITUTION
DISPOSITION) | |
-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------
HUNGER; WILL-TO-LIVE | The food-quest | Economic technique
Self-Maintenance | | property, invention,
| | material arts of life
-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------
SEX : | Procreation and | The family, ancestor
Self-Perpetuation | parenthood | worship, courts of
| | domestic relations,
| | patriarchal government,
| | etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
=To make sociology real make it egocentric=
The way is now clear for the two next steps, the concepts of causation
and development. Here again why not follow the egocentric plan of
starting with what the student knows? Ask him to write a brief but
careful autobiography answering the questions--How have I come to be
what I am? What influences personal or otherwise have played upon
me?[34] The student is almost certain to lay hold of the principle of
determining or controlling forces, and of evolution or change; he may
even be able to analyze rather clearly the different types of control
which have cooperated in his development.
From this start it is easy to develop the genetic concept of social
life. The individual grows from simple to complex. Why not the race?
Here introduce a comparison between the social group known to the
student, a retarded group (such as MacClintock's or Vincent's study of
the Kentucky Mountaineers[35]) or a frontier community, and a
contemporary primitive tribe (say, the Hupa or Seri Indians, Negritos,
Bontoc Igorot, Bangala, Kafirs, Yakuts, Eskimo, or Andaman Islanders).
Require a detailed comparison arranged in parallel columns on such
points as size, variety of occupation, food supply, security of life,
institutions, family life, language, religion, superstitions, and
opportunities for culture.
These two points of departure--the student's interest in his own
personality and the community influences that have molded it, and the
comparative study of a primitive group--should harmonize the two chief
rival views of teaching sociologists; namely, those who urge the
approach to sociology through anthropology and those who find the best
avenue through the concrete knowledge of the _socius_. Moreover, it lays
a foundation for a discussion of the antiquity of man, his kinship with
other living things, and his evolution; that is, the biological
presupposition of human society. Here let me testify to the great help
which Osborn's photographs[36] of reconstructions of the
Pithecanthropos, Piltdown, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon types have
rendered in clearing away prejudices and in vivifying the remote past.
Religious apprehensions in particular may be allayed also by referring
students to articles on race, man, evolution, anthropology, etc., in
such compilations as the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ and Hastings'
_Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_. The opening chapters in Marett's
little book on _Anthropology_ are so sanely and admirably written that
they also clear away many prejudices and fears.
With such a concrete body of facts contrasting primitive with modern
civilized social life the student will naturally inquire, How did
these changes come about? At this point should come normally the
answer in terms of what practically all sociologists agree upon;
namely, the three great sets of determining forces or phenomena, the
three "controls": (1) the physical environment (climate, topography,
natural resources, etc.); (2) man's own nature (psycho-physical
factors, the factors in biological evolution, the role of instinct,
race, and possibly the concrete problems of immigration and eugenics);
(3) social heredity (folk-ways, customs, institutions, the arts of
life, the methods of getting a living, significance of tools,
distribution of wealth, standards of living, etc.) A blackboard
diagram will show how these various factors converge upon any given
individual.[37]
The amplification of these three points will ordinarily make up the
body of an introductory course so far as class work goes. Ethnography
should furnish rich illustrative material. But to make class
discussions really productive the student's knowledge of his own
community must be drawn upon. And the best way of getting this
correlation is through community surveys. The student should be
required as parallel laboratory work to prepare a series of chapters
on his ward or part of his ward or village, covering the three sets of
determining factors. The instructor may furnish an outline of the
topics to be investigated, or he may pass around copies of such brief
survey outlines as Aronovici's _Knowing One's Own Community_ or Miss
Byington's _What Social Workers Should Know about Their Own
Communities_; he may also refer them to any one of the rapidly growing
number of good urban and rural surveys as models. But he should not
give too much information as to where materials for student reports
may be obtained. The disciplinary value of having to hunt out facts
and uncover sources is second only to the value of accurate
observation and effective presentation. If the aim of a sociology
course is social efficiency, experience shows no better way of getting
a vivid, sober, first-hand knowledge of community conditions. And
there is likewise no surer way of compelling students to substitute
facts for vapid wordiness and snap judgments.
Toward the end of the course many of us have found it profitable to
introduce a brief discussion of what may be called the highest term of
the series; namely, the evolution of two or three typical
institutions, say law and government, education, religion, and the
family. These topics will serve to clinch the earlier discussions and
to crystallize a few ideas on social control and perhaps even social
progress.
Normally such a course will close with a fuller definition of the
meaning of sociology, its content, its value in the study of other
sciences, and, if time permits, a brief historical sketch of the
development of sociology as a separate science.
=The use of a text for study=
I have no certified advice to offer on the question of textbooks. But
the almost universal cry of sociology teachers is that so far no
really satisfactory text has been produced. Some men still use
Spencer, some write their own books, some try to adapt to their
particular needs such texts as are issued from time to time, some use
none at all but depend upon a more or less well-correlated syllabus or
set of readings. There is undoubtedly a profitable demand for a good
elementary source book comparable to Thomas's _Source Book on Social
Origins_ or Marshall, Wright, and Field's _Materials for the Study of
Elementary Economics_. Nearly any text will need freshening up by
collateral reading from such periodicals as _The Survey or The New
Republic_. In order to secure effective and correlated outside
reading, many teachers have found it helpful to require the students
to devote the first five or ten minutes of a class meeting once a week
or even daily to a written summary of their readings and of class
discussions. Such a device keeps readings fresh and enables the
teacher to emphasize the points of contact between readings and class
work.
=The social museum=
Every university should develop some sort of a social museum, to cover
primitive types of men, the evolution of tools, arts of life, manners
and customs, and contemporary social conditions. These can be
displayed in the form of plaster casts, ethnographic specimens,
photographs, lantern slides, models of housing, statistical charts,
printed monographs, etc. The massing of a series of these
illustrations sometimes produces a profound effect. For example, the
corridor leading to the sociology rooms at the University of Minnesota
has been lined with large photographs of tenement conditions, child
labor, immigrant types, etc. The student's interest and curiosity have
been heightened immensely. Once a semester, during the discussion of
the economic factor in social life, we stage what is facetiously
called "a display of society's dirty linen." The classroom is
decorated with a set of charts showing the distribution of wealth,
wages, cost of living, growth of labor unions and other organizations
of economic protest. The mass effect is a cumulative challenge.
=Field work: values and limitations=
Finally, a word about "field work" as a teaching device. Field work
usually means some sort of social service practice work under
direction of a charitable agency, juvenile court, settlement, or
playground. But beginning students are usually more of a liability
than an asset to such agencies; they lack the time to supervise
students' work, and field work without strict supervision is a
farcical waste of time. If such agencies will accept a few students
who have the learner's attitude rather than an inflated persuasion of
their social Messiahship, field work can become a very valuable
adjunct to class work. In default of such opportunities the very best
field work is an open-eyed study of one's own community, in the
attempt to find out what actually is rather than to reform a
hypothetical evil.[38]
ARTHUR J. TODD
_University of Minnesota_
Footnotes:
[34] In order to secure frank statements, both these autobiographies
and the time budgets may be handed in anonymously.
[35] _American Journal of Sociology_, 4:1-20; 7:1-28, 171-187.
[36] In his _Men of the Old Stone Age_.
[37] See such a diagram in Todd, _Theories of Social Progress_, page
240.
[38] While accepting full responsibility for the opinions herein set
forth, I wish to express my appreciation of assistance rendered by a
large group of colleagues in the American Sociological Society.
XII
THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
A. THE TEACHING OF AMERICAN HISTORY
=Function of the teacher of history=
History as a science attempts to explain the development of
civilization. The investigator of the sources of history must do his
part in a truly scientific spirit. He must examine with the utmost
scrutiny the many sources on which the history of the past has its
foundation. He reveals facts, and through them the truth is
established.
But history is more than a science. It is an art. The investigator is
not necessarily a historian, any more than a lumberman is an
architect. The historian must use all available material, whether the
result of his own researches or that of others. He must weigh all
facts and deduct from them the truth. He must analyze, synthesize,
organize, and generalize. He must absorb the spirit of the people of
whom he writes and color the narrative as little as possible with his
own prejudices. But the historian must be more than a narrator; he
must be an interpreter. As an interpreter he should never lose sight
of the fact that all his deductions should be along scientific lines.
Even then he will not escape errors. In pure science error is
inadmissible. In history minor errors of fact are unavoidable, but
their presence need not seriously affect the general conclusions. In
spite of many misstatements of fact, a historical work may be
substantially correct in the main things--in presenting and
interpreting with true perspective the life and spirit of the people
of whom it treats.
The historian must be more than a chronicler and an interpreter. He
must be master of a lucid, virile, attractive literary style. The
power of expression, indeed, must be one of his chief accomplishments.
The old notion, it is true, that history is merely a branch of
literature is quite as erroneous as the later theory that history is
a pure science and must be dissociated from all literary form.
=The teacher of history as the teacher of the evolution of civilization=
The pioneer investigator who patiently delves into sources and brings
to light new material deserves high praise, but far rarer is the gift
of the man who sees history in its true perspective, who can construct
the right relationships and can then reproduce the past in compelling
literary form. A historian without literary charm is like an architect
who cares only for the utility and nothing for the grace and beauty of
his building.
=The chronological point of view=
The history teacher who slavishly follows old chronological methods
has not kept pace with modern progress; but the teacher who has
discarded the chronological method has ventured without a compass on
an unknown sea. Chronology, the sequence of events, is as necessary in
history as distance and direction in geography.
=The economic point of view=
A modern school of history teachers would make economics the sole
background of history, would explain all historic events from the
economic standpoint--to which school this writer does not belong.
Economics has played a great part in the course of human events, but
it is only one of many causes that explain history. For example, the
Trojan War (if there was a Trojan War), the conquests of Alexander,
the Mohammedan invasions, were due chiefly to other causes.
=The culture viewpoint=
Nor would we agree with the school of modern educators who would
eliminate the culture studies from the curriculum, retaining only
those which make for present-day utilitarianism. A general education
imparts power and enlarges life, and such an education should precede
all technical and specialized training. If a young man with the solid
foundation of a liberal education fail in this or that walk of life,
the fault must be sought elsewhere than in his education. The late E.
H. Harriman made a wise observation when he said that though a high
school graduate may excel the college graduate in the same employment
for the first year, the latter would at length overtake and pass him
and henceforth remain in the lead.
=Aims of history in the college curriculum=
The uses of the study of history are many, the most important of which
perhaps is that it aids us in penetrating the present. Our
understanding of every phase of modern life is no doubt strengthened
by a knowledge of the past. It is trite but true to say that the study
of history is a study of human nature, that a knowledge of the origin
and growth of the institutions we enjoy makes for a good citizenship,
that the study of history is a cultural study and that it ranks with
other studies as a means of mental discipline. Finally, the reading of
history by one who has learned to love it is an abiding source of
entertainment and mental recreation. It is one of the two branches of
knowledge (the other being literature) which no intelligent person,
whatever his occupation, can afford to lay aside after quitting
school.
=What can the study of American history give the college student?=
The most important historical study is always that of one's own
country. In our American colleges, therefore, the study of American
history must take precedence over that of any other, though an
exception may be made in case a student is preparing to teach the
history of some other country or period. It must not be forgotten,
however, by the student of American history that a study of the
European background is an essential part of it.
From its very newness the history of the United States may seem less
fascinating than that of the older countries, and, indeed, it is true
that the glamour of romance that gathers around the stories of royal
dynasties, orders of nobility, and ancient castles is wanting in
American history. But there is much to compensate for this. The coming
of the early settlers, often because of oppression in their native
land, their long struggle with the forest and with the wild men and
wild beasts of the forest, the gradual conquest of the soil, the
founding of cities, the transplanting of European institutions and
their development under new environment--the successful revolt against
political oppression and the fearless grappling with the problem of
self-government when nearly all governments in the world were
monarchical--these and many other phases of American history furnish
a most fascinating story as a mere story.
=To the college student American history must be presented as evidence
of the success of democracy=
But to the student of politics and history the most unique and
interesting thing, perhaps, in American history lies in the fact that
the United States is the first great country in the world's history in
which the federal system has been successful--if we assume that our
experimental period has passed. Perhaps the greatest of all
governmental problems is just this: How to strike the right balance
between these opposing tendencies--liberty and union, democracy and
nationality--so that the people may enjoy the benefits of both. The
United States has, no doubt, come nearer than any other country to
solving this problem, and the fact greatly enhances the interest in
our history. This is a question of political science rather than of
history, it is true, but the history of any country and its government
are inseparably bound together.
=Utilitarian value=
In the regular college curriculum there should be, in my opinion, two
courses in American history.
=Organization of courses and methods of teaching=
_Course I_--about 3 hours for one academic year (6 semester-hours) in
the freshman or sophomore year, covering the whole story of the United
States. About one third of the year's work should cover the Colonial
and Revolutionary periods. Of the remaining two thirds of the year I
should devote about half to the period since the Civil War.
This course should be required of all students taking the A.B. degree
and in all other liberal arts courses; an exception may be made in the
case of those taking certain specialized scientific courses--for these
students, the history required in the high school may be deemed
sufficient.
In this course a textbook is necessary, and if the class is large it
is desirable that the text be uniform. The text should be written by a
true historian with broad and comprehensive views, by one who knows
how to appraise historic values, and, if possible, by one who commands
an attractive literary style. If the textbook is written by Dr.
Dry-as-dust, however learned he may be, the whole burden of keeping
the class interested rests with the teacher; and, moreover, many of
the students will never become lovers of the subject to such a degree
as to make it a lifelong study.
The exclusive lecture system is intolerable, and the same is true of
the quiz. A teacher will do his best work if untrammeled by rules. He
should conduct a class in his own way and according to his own
temperament. It is doubtful if the teacher who carefully plans and
maps out the work he intends to present to the class is the most
successful teacher. A teacher who is free, spontaneous, without a
fixed method, ready in passing from the lecture to the quiz and vice
versa at any moment, quick in asking unexpected questions, will
usually have little trouble in keeping a class alert. Above all, a
teacher of college history must explain the meaning of things with far
greater fullness than is possible in a condensed textbook, and it is a
most excellent practice to ask opinions of members of the class on
almost all debatable questions that may arise. The reason for this is
obvious.
The usual method of the writer, in as far as he has a method, is to
spend the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the class hour in hearing
reports from two or three students on special topics that have been
assigned them a week or two before, topics that require library
reference work and that could not possibly be developed from the
textbook. These topics are not on the subject of the day's lesson, but
of some preceding lesson. After commenting on these reports and often
asking for opinions and comments of the class, we plunge into the
day's lesson.
The use of a current periodical in class should be encouraged. It
brings the learner into direct contact with life and often illuminates
the past.
Current events as presented in the daily papers should often be the
subject of comment, but the daily newspaper is not suitable for class
use. Even the weekly is, for several reasons, less desirable than the
monthly. It must not be forgotten that the basal, fundamental work of
the class is, not to keep posted on current affairs, but to study the
elements under the guidance of a textbook and an inspiring teacher to
interpret it. The weekly is less accurate than the monthly and less
literary in form, and, moreover, it comes too often. It is apt to take
too much time from the study of the fundamentals. The use of the
periodical in the history class has probably come to stay and it
should stay, but it should be only incidental and supplementary.
_Course II_ should be given in the junior or senior year. It should be
elective, should cover at least two year-hours, and should be wholly
devoted to the national period of American history. Only those having
taken Course I should be eligible to this class.
Every student who expects to read law, to enter journalism or
politics, or to teach history or political science should take this
course. The class will be smaller than in Course I. Uniform textbooks
need not be required, or the class may be conducted without a text.
Most of the work must be done from the library.
It is assumed that the members of this class have a good knowledge of
the narrative, and it is needless to follow it closely again. A better
plan is to choose an important phase of the history here and there and
study intensively. Much use should be made of original sources such as
Presidents' messages, _Congressional Record_, speeches and writings of
the times, but the class must not ignore the fact that a vast amount
of good material may be had from the historians. It must also be
remembered that original research is for the graduate student and the
specialist rather than for the undergraduate.
=Testing the results of instruction=
In conclusion, I shall explain a method of examination that I have
frequently employed with apparently excellent results. Two or three
weeks before the time of the examination I give the class a series of
topics, perhaps fifty or more, carefully chosen from the entire
subject that has been studied during the semester. Instead of having
the usual review of the text, we talk over these subjects in class
during the remainder of the semester. The examination is oral, not
written. The time for examination is divided into three, four, or five
minute periods, according to the number in the class. When a student's
name is called, he comes forward and draws from a box one of the
topics and dilates on it before the class during his allotted time. If
he fails on the first topic he may have another draw, but his grade
will be reduced. A second failure would mean a "flunk," unless the
class marks are very high.
There are three or four real advantages in this form of examination:
(1) It saves the teacher hours of labor in reading examination papers;
(2) the teacher, in selecting the topics, omits the unimportant and
chooses only the salient, leading subjects such as every student
should master and remember; (3) the student, knowing that no new
questions will be sprung for the examination, will be almost sure to
be prepared on every question. Failures under this system have been
much less frequent than under the old system of written examinations;
(4) it practically eliminates all chance of cheating in examination.
HENRY W. ELSON
_Thiel College_
B. MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY
=History to be taught as an evolutionary process=
Teaching European history in colleges is, in many ways, not different
from teaching any other history. In each instance it is to be
remembered that history includes all activities of man and not merely
his political life, that facts and data are not intrinsically valuable
but are merely a means to an end, that the end of history is to inform
us where man came from, what experiences he passed through, and
_chiefly_, what were the fundamental forces behind his experiences.
The emphasis should be put on the stimuli--economic, political,
religious, or social--that lead man to act, instead of narrating his
action. In a word, not _what_ happened or _when_ it happened, but
_why_ it happened, is of importance in college history. Stressing the
stimuli in history will almost inevitably lead to treating history as
a continuous or evolutionary process, which of itself greatly
increases the interest of the subject.
=Because history is an evolution it must explain the present=
It is highly desirable that in teaching modern history very much more
time be given to recent history than has generally been the case.
Frederick William I showed that he accepted this when he instructed
the tutors of Frederick (later the Great) to teach the history of the
last fifty years to the exactest pitch. So important is this that,
even when teaching early periods, constant contrasts or comparisons
with present conditions should be made, and the descent of ideas and
institutions to modern times should be sketched, as it shows the
student that remote events or institutions have a relationship to
current life.
=Disciplinary values of history=
Certain special aims of history have been advocated. It is held to be
of disciplinary value, especially in strengthening the memory. Though
this is true, it is hardly a good reason for studying history, as the
memory can be perfected on almost anything, on the dictionary, poetry,
formulae, family records, gossip, or cans on grocery shelves, some of
which may indeed be of more practical value than dates. In college, at
least, history should aim to explain social tendencies and processes
in a rational way rather than to develop the memory. The latter method
tends to make the student passive and narrow, the former requires
cerebration and develops breadth and depth of vision. Understanding
history, rather than memorizing it, has cultural value. To be sure,
understanding presupposes information; but where there is a desire to
understand, the process of seeking and acquiring the information is
natural and tends to care for itself.
History is not a prerequisite to professional careers in the way
mathematics is to engineering; still, special periods, chiefly the
modern, are highly useful to lawyers, journalists, publicists,
statesmen, and others, each of whom selects what he finds most useful
to his purposes.
=Organization of courses in history--What to teach in the beginning course=
The point of view in history teaching is more material than the
machinery or methods employed. These must and should vary with persons
and conditions. Ordinarily, however, it seems preferable to offer some
part of European history as the first-year college course, because
students have usually had considerable American history in high
school, and the change adds new interest. Whether this course be
general, medieval, or modern European history is of little importance,
though, of course, medieval should precede modern history. In any
case, the course should offer the student a good deal more than he may
have had in high school, if for no other reason than to justify the
profound respect with which he ordinarily comes to college. It should
come often enough a week to grip the student, especially the history
major.
=Gradation of courses determined by content=
Gradation of courses in history on the basis of subject matter is
largely arbitrary, and turns upon the method of presentation. General
courses naturally precede period courses. A sound principle is to
select courses adapted to the stages of the student's development. On
this principle it has already been suggested that the first college
course should be, not American but European history. English, ancient,
medieval, or modern history immediately suggest themselves, with
strong arguments in favor of the first if but one freshman course is
offered, as it forms a natural projection of American history into the
past. Beyond this, what subject matter is offered in the several years
is largely a matter of local convenience, as the college student
understands the general history of all nations or periods about
equally well. It is now clear, however, that the student should know
more modern and contemporary European history than he has been
getting, and the sound training of an American of the future should
include thorough training in modern European history.
=Gradation of courses may be determined by method of teaching=
Gradation based on the method of presentation is more nearly possible.
Graduate courses presuppose training in the auxiliary sciences, in the
necessary languages, in research methods, in the special field of
research, as well as a knowledge of general history. This establishes
a sort of sequence of the methods to be employed, irrespective of
subject matter.
=Method of teaching introductory courses--Lecture method=
The lecture method is convenient for the elementary courses,
especially if, as is so often the case, these have a large number of
students. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that convenience or, worse
still, economy is a weak argument in favor of the lecture course,
especially for the first-year student. To him the lecture method is
unknown, and he flounders about a good deal if he is left to work out
his own salvation; and then, too, just when he needs personal
direction and particularly when, as a youth away from home for the
first time, he needs some definite and unescapable task that shall
teach discipline and duty as well as give information, the lecture
system gives him the maximum of liberty with the minimum of aid or
direction. These considerations strongly advocate small classes for
freshmen, frequent recitations, discussions, tests, papers and maps,
library problems--in short, a laboratory system. Every student should
always have at least one course in which he is held to rigid and exact
performance. These courses should be required, no matter what the
special field or period of history, and should form a sequence leading
to a degree and providing training for a technical and professional
career. In addition to these courses, designed to assure personal work
and supervision, enough other, presumably lecture, courses should be
required to secure a general knowledge of history. Beyond that there
are always enough electives to satisfy any personal wish or whim of
the student.
=Topical method in European history=
There is much to be said, especially in modern history, for the
topical treatment of institutions. In a very specialized course a
single institution may be treated; but even in a general course,
treating the several human institutions as evolutionary organisms
seems preferable and is more interesting than a chronological
narrative, which grows more inane the more general the course. Courses
which come to modern times can trace existing institutions and their
immediate antecedents, thus giving an advantage that many instructors
neglect from the mere tradition that history does not come down to
living man. No primitive superstition needs to be dispelled more than
this, if history is to maintain its hold in the modern college.
Indeed, whenever possible--which is always with modern history--a
course should start from the present by dwelling on the existing
conditions the historical antecedents of which are to be traced. If
this is done, the student forthwith secures a vital interest and feels
that he is trying to understand his own rather than past times. After
this preliminary the past can be traced chronologically or topically
as preferred, the textbook serving as a quarry for data, the teacher
seeing to it that the change or progress toward the present condition
is perceived and understood, and furnishing corroborative and
analogous materials from the history of other nations and periods.
=Assigned reading=
It is the general practice of college courses in history to require
outside reading. Though this rests on the sound ground that the
student ought to get a large background and learn to know books and
writers, it is very doubtful whether this aim is, in fact, achieved.
The student often has too much work to permit of much outside reading,
and often the library is too limited to give him a good choice, or to
permit him to keep a desirable book until he has finished reading it.
Unguided reading is almost certainly a failure; reading guided only by
putting a selected list of books before the student is not sure to be
a success. The instructor ought from time to time to tell his class
something about the books he suggests, and about their authors and
their careers, viewpoints and merits, as a reader always profits by
knowing these things. As the reading of snatches from collateral books
is hardly profitable, so the perusal of longer histories is often
impossible, and generally confines the student for a long time to the
minutiae of one period while the class is going forward. In view of
these difficulties there is much to be said in favor of putting a
large textbook into the hands of a class, and requiring a thorough
reading and understanding of it, and correspondingly reducing outside
readings. If collateral reading is demanded, it is a good plan to
require students to read a biography or a work on some special
institution falling within the scope of the course,--some selected
historical novel even,--for in that way the student reads, as he will
in later life, something he selects instead of a required number of
pages, a specific thing is covered, an author's acquaintance is made,
and therefore a significant test can be conducted. Furthermore, as
some students will buy special volumes of this kind, the pressure on
the library is reduced. Direct access to reference shelves is always
recommended. One of our universities has a system of renting preferred
books to students.
=Tests on outside reading=
Tests on outside reading are always difficult, but they must be
employed if the reading is not to become a farce. By having weekly
reading reports on uniform cards, one can often arrange groups of
students who have read the same thing and can therefore be tested by a
single question. By extending this over several weeks the majority of
students, even in a large class, can be tested with relatively few
questions. Some instructors require students to hand in their reading
notes, others check up the books the students use in the library,
still others have consultation periods in which they inquire into the
student's reading. Quiz sections, if there are any, offer a good
opportunity to test collateral reading.
=Miscellaneous aids in teaching history=
Map making, coordinated with the recitations and so designed as to
require more than mere tracing, is desirable in introductory courses.
The imaginative historical theme written by the student is
employed--and successfully, it is declared--in one college. A syllabus
is highly useful in the hands of students in lecture courses. It can
be mimeographed at comparatively slight expense for each lecture, thus
permitting changes in successive years--a distinct advantage over the
printed syllabus.
=The problem of suitable examination=
How to give a fair and telling examination is the college teacher's
perennial problem. The less he teaches and insists on facts and
details, the greater his quandary. A majority of students incline to
parrot what they have heard, to the dismay of the teacher who wants
them to make the subject their own. Hence tests calling the memory
only into play do not satisfy the true teacher or the thoughtful
student. At the least there should be some questions requiring
constructive or synthetic thinking by the student. Above all, the
instructor of introductory work should form a first-hand personal
opinion of the student by requiring him to come to the office for
consultation. Nothing can take the place of the personal touch. Quiz
masters are better than no touch; but they are a poor substitute for
the small class and direct contact, even if the instructor is not one
of the masters of the profession.
=The worth of topical or institutional treatment=
The topical or institutional treatment of history has been mentioned
above as being particularly applicable to modern history. If carefully
worked out beforehand it can be made to embrace virtually
everything--certainly everything significant--that is contained either
in the text or in a chronological narrative. To be sure, a topical
treatment of this kind places more emphasis on the common experiences
of mankind than does national history, and, as some nations or peoples
precede others in a given development, history becomes continuous
instead of fragmentary. Perhaps, too, the way certain matters are
introduced into "continuous" history may appear forced, unless it be
remembered that this impression is created merely by its dissimilarity
from the usual interpretation, which is just as arbitrary and forced
until one gets accustomed to it.
=Classification in topical treatment=
It will be serviceable in arranging a topical treatment of any period
of history, which shall show a sense of historical continuity and keep
in mind the fundamental stimuli and causes of human action, to note
that virtually all human interests can be classified under one of the
following six heads: physical, economic, social, religious, political,
and intellectual (or cultural). Though these are never wholly isolated
and are always interactive, one or the other may be specially
significant in a given era, and thus we speak of a religious age, an
age of rationalism, or the period of the industrial revolution.
SUGGESTED TOPICAL OUTLINE OF MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY
To apply this more specifically to modern European history, there
follows an outline of topics. It is general to about 1789, and more
detailed for the period since that time (IV below), the endeavor being
to show how a topical treatment of the development of democracy can be
made to include practically everything of significance. There are
certain cautions necessary here: that the outline is suggestive only,
that it does not pretend or aim to be complete, that specific data
often found in the sub-heads are to serve as illustrations and not as
a complete statement of sub-topics; and that it is in fact merely a
skeleton which can be extended and amplified indefinitely by
insertions.
I. Background of the modern period.
_A._ Economic and social conditions at the close of the Middle Age.
_B._ Political nature of feudalism.
The governments of the 15th century.
_C._ The medieval church.
II. The development of religious liberty.
_A._ The Reformation.
_B._ Varieties of Protestant sects, from state churches to
individualistic sects.
_C._ The Religious Wars, and toleration.
III. Absolute monarchy.
_A._ Dynastic states.
_B._ Dynastic wars and the balance of power.