But to make more definite requirements is, after all, only the first
step in improving efficiency. It is not sufficient that one know what
results are wanted; one must also know how these results may be
obtained. Improvement in method means improvement in efficiency, and a
crying need in education to-day is a scientific investigation of methods
of teaching. Teachers should be made acquainted with the methods that
are most economical and efficient. As a matter of fact, whatever is done
in that direction at the present time must be almost entirely confined
to suggestions and hints.
Our discussions of methods of teaching may be divided into three
classes: (1) Dogmatic assertions that such and such a method is right
and that all others are wrong--assertions based entirely upon _a priori_
reasoning. For example, the assertion that children must never be
permitted to learn their lessons "by heart" is based upon the general
principle that words are only symbols of ideas and that, if one has
ideas, one can find words of his own in which to formulate them. (2) A
second class of discussions of method comprises descriptions of devices
that have proved successful in certain instances and with certain
teachers. (3) Of a third class of discussions there are very few
representative examples. I refer to methods that have been established
on the basis of experiments in which irrelevant factors have been
eliminated. In fact, I know of no clearly defined report or discussion
of this sort. An approach to a scientific solution of a definite problem
of method is to be found in Browne's monograph, _The Psychology of
Simple Arithmetical Processes_. Another example is represented by the
experiments of Miss Steffens, Marx Lobsien, and others, regarding the
best methods of memorizing, and proving beyond much doubt that the
complete repetition is more economical than the partial repetition. But
these conclusions have, of course, only a limited field of application
to practical teaching. We stand in great need of a definite experimental
investigation of the detailed problems of teaching upon which there is
wide divergence of opinion. A very good illustration is the controversy
between the how and the why in primary arithmetic. In this case, there
is a vast amount of "opinion," but there are no clearly defined
conclusions drawn from accurate tests. It would seem possible to do work
of this sort concerning the details of method in the teaching of
arithmetic, spelling, grammar, penmanship, and geography.