A student's history of education

by Frank Pierrepont Graves

DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE

OUTLINE

Of the two aspects to Pestalozzi’s educational positions, Froebel stressed development from within, and Herbart development from without.

Through an early tutorial experience Herbart developed his pedagogy, but afterward invented an ingenious psychology upon which to base it. He undertook to show how the mind of the pupil is largely built up by the teacher, and he held to the moral aim of education. To accomplish this, he advocated ‘many-sided interest,’ and, while recognizing the value of both ‘historical’ and ‘scientific’ subjects, emphasized the former. But he also held that all subjects should be unified through ‘correlation,’ and formulated the ‘formal steps of instruction.’ The value of his work has been obscured by the formal interpretations of disciples, but he contributed greatly to the science of education. Herbartianism, developed by Ziller and others, spread throughout Germany; through the Herbart Society, it has greatly influenced educational content and methods in the United States.

Through his university environment, Froebel developed a mystic philosophy, but made it the basis of remarkable educational practices. He held to organic ‘unity’ in the universe, and to the general method of ‘self-activity.’ Besides this (1) ‘motor expression,’ he also stressed (2) ‘social participation,’ and attempted to realize both principles in (3) a school without books and set tasks,—the ‘kindergarten.’ The training here has consisted chiefly in ‘play-songs,’ ‘gifts,’ and ‘occupations.’ The chief weakness of Froebelianism is its mystic and symbolic theory, but it has comprehended the most essential laws of education at all stages. The kindergarten was spread through Europe largely by Baroness von Bülow, and through the United States by Elizabeth P. Peabody and others.

Few tendencies in educational practices to-day cannot be traced back for their rudimentary form to Herbart and Froebel, or their master, Pestalozzi.

Froebel and Herbart as Disciples of Pestalozzi.—In the discussion of observation and industrial training, we have noted the suggestions for improvement in educational practice that arose through Pestalozzi. While somewhat vague and based upon sympathetic insight rather than scientific principles, the positions of Pestalozzi not only left their direct influence upon the teaching of certain subjects in the elementary curriculum, but became the basis of the elaborate systems of Herbart and Froebel. These educators may be regarded as contemporary disciples of the Swiss reformer, who was born a generation before, but they continued his work along rather different lines. Each went to visit Pestalozzi, and it would seem from their comments upon what Each saw in the master the principle that appealed to him. they saw that each found in the master the main principle which appealed to him and which he afterward developed more or less consistently throughout his work.

For there were two very definite aspects to Pestalozzi’s positions, which may at first seem opposed to each other, but are not necessarily contradictory. On the one hand, Pestalozzi seems to have held that education should be a natural development from within; on the other, that it must consist in the derivation of ideas from experience with the outside world. The former point of view, which is apparent in his educational aim and definition of education (see p. 285), would logically argue that every Development from within and the child were emphasized by Froebel; characteristic is implicit in the child at birth in the exact form to which it is afterward to be developed, and that the teacher can at best only assist the child’s nature in the efforts for its own unfolding. This attitude Pestalozzi apparently borrowed from the psychology implied in Rousseau’s naturalism. The other conception, that of education as sense perception, which is evident in development from without and methods, by Herbart. Pestalozzi’s observational methods (see p. 286), depends upon the theory that immediate and direct impressions from the outside are the absolute basis of all knowledge, and holds that the contents of the mind must be entirely built up by the teacher. Some such naïve interpretation has been common since speculation began, especially among teachers, and had been formulated before Pestalozzi’s day by Locke, Hume, and others. In the main, Froebel took the first of these Pestalozzian viewpoints and rarely admitted the other, but the latter phase was developed by Herbart to the almost total disregard of the former. Hence we find that the one educator lays emphasis upon the child’s development and activities, and the other concerns himself with method and the work of the teacher. The original contributions of both reformers to educational practice, however, were large, and are deserving of extended description.

The Early Career and Writings of Herbart.—Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841) both by birth and by education possessed a remarkable mind, and was well calculated to become a profound educational philosopher. He came of intellectual and educated stock, and at the Interest in philosophy, Greek, and mathematics. gymnasium and university displayed a keen interest in philosophy, Greek, and mathematics. Each of these subjects, too, was destined to play a part in his educational theories. Just before graduation (1797), however, Herbart left the university to become private tutor to the three sons of the governor of Interlaken, Switzerland, and during the next three years he obtained in this way a most valuable experience. The five extant reports that he made on the methods he used and on his pupils’ progress reveal thus early the germs of his elaborate Development of his pedagogy through tutorial experience. system. The youthful pedagogue seems to have recognized the individual variations in children, and to have shown a due regard for the respective ages of his pupils. He also sought, by means of his favorite work, the Odyssey, to develop in them the elements of morality and a ‘many-sided interest.’ This early experience, rather than his ingenious system of psychology and metaphysics, which he afterward developed in explanation, was the real foundation of his pedagogy, and furnished him with the concrete examples of the characteristics and individualities of children that appear in all his later works. He ever afterward maintained that a careful study of the development of a few children was the best preparation for a pedagogical career, and eventually made an experience of this kind the main element in his training of teachers.

While still in Switzerland, Herbart met Pestalozzi and was greatly attracted by the underlying principles of that reformer. He paid a visit to the institute at Burgdorf in 1799, and during the next two years, while at Bremen completing his interrupted university course, he undertook to advocate and render more scientific the Interpreted and supplemented Pestalozzi’s principles. thought of the Swiss educator. Here he wrote a sympathetic essay On Pestalozzi’s Latest Writing, ‘How Gertrude Teaches Her Children,’ and made his interpretation of Pestalozzi’s Idea of an A B C of Observation (see p. 286). Next Herbart lectured on pedagogy at the University of Göttingen. The treatises he wrote there seem to have become more critical toward the Pestalozzian methods, and he no longer strives to conceal their vagueness and want of system. Sense perception, he holds with Pestalozzi, does supply the first elements of knowledge, but the material of the school course should be definitely arranged with reference to the general purpose of instruction, which is moral self-realization. This position on the moral aim of education he made especially explicit The Science of Education. and complete in his work on The Science of Education (1806).

His Work at Königsberg and Göttingen.—In 1809 Herbart was called to the chair of philosophy at Königsberg, and there established his now historic pedagogical Seminary and practice school. seminary and the small practice school connected with it. The students, who taught in the practice school under the supervision and criticism of the professor, were intending to become school principals and inspectors, and, through the widespread work and influence of these young Herbartians the educational system of Prussia and of every other state in Germany was greatly advanced. In his numerous publications at Königsberg, Herbart devoted himself chiefly to works on a system of psychology as a basis for his pedagogy. After serving nearly a quarter of a century here, he returned to Göttingen as professor of philosophy, and the last eight years of his life were spent in expanding his pedagogical positions. Outlines of Educational Doctrine. Here he issued the first edition of his Outlines of Educational Doctrine (1835), which gives an exposition of his educational system when fully matured. It contains brief references to his mechanical metaphysics and psychology, but is a most practical and well-organized discussion of the educational process.

Herbart’s Psychology.—Herbart’s metaphysical psychology An after-thought. seems to have been an after-thought developed to afford a basis for the method of pedagogical procedure that he had worked out of his tutorial experience and his acquaintance with the Pestalozzian practice. But some explanation of this elaborate psychology may serve to make clearer his educational principles. For the most Mind built up by outside world. part he holds that the mind is built up by the outside world, and he is generally supposed to have left no place for instincts or innate characteristics and tendencies. With him the simplest elements of consciousness are ‘ideas,’ which are atoms of mind stuff thrown off from the soul in endeavoring to maintain itself against external stimuli. Once produced by this contact of the soul with its environment, the ideas become existences with their own dynamic force, and constantly strive to preserve Genesis and combination of ideas. themselves. They struggle to attain as nearly as possible to the summit of consciousness, and each idea tends to draw into consciousness or heighten those allied to it, and to depress or force out those which are unlike. Each new idea or group of ideas is heightened, modified, or rejected, according to its degree of harmony or conflict with the previously existing ideas. In other words, all new ideas are interpreted through those already in consciousness. In accordance with this principle, which ‘Apperception.’ Herbart called ‘apperception,’ the teacher can secure interest and the attention of the pupil to any new idea or set of ideas and have him retain it, only through making use of his previous body of related knowledge. Hence the educational problem becomes how to present new material in such a way that it can be ‘apperceived’ or incorporated with the old, and the mind of the pupil is largely in the hands of the teacher, since he can make or modify his ‘apperception masses,’ or systems of ideas.

The Aim, Content, and Method of Education.—Accordingly, Herbart holds that the purpose of education Attainment of character as aim. should be to establish moral and religious character. He believes that this final aim can be attained through instruction, and that, to determine how this shall furnish a ‘moral revelation of the world,’ a careful study must be made of each pupil’s thought masses, temperament, and mental capacity. There is not much likelihood of the pupil’s receiving ideas of virtue that will develop into glowing ideals of conduct when his studies do not appeal to his thought systems and are consequently regarded with indifference and aversion. They must coalesce with the ideas he already has, and thus touch his life. But Herbart does not limit ‘interest’ to a temporary stimulus for the performance of certain school tasks; he advocates the building up by education ‘Many-sided interest.’ of certain broad interests that may become permanent sources of appeal in life. Instruction must be so selected and arranged as not only to relate itself to the previous experience of the pupil, but as also to reveal and establish all the relations of life and conduct in their fullness.

In analyzing this ‘many-sided interest,’ Herbart holds that ideas and interests spring from two main sources,—‘experience,’ which furnishes us with a knowledge of nature, and ‘social intercourse,’ from which come the ‘Knowledge’ and ‘participation’ interests. sentiments toward our fellowmen. Interests may, therefore, be classed as belonging to (1) ‘knowledge’ or to (2) ‘participation.’ These two sets of interests, in turn, Herbart divides into three groups each. He classed the ‘knowledge’ interests as (a) ‘empirical,’ appealing directly to the senses; (b) ‘speculative,’ seeking to perceive the relations of cause and effect; and (c) ‘æsthetic,’ resting upon the enjoyment of contemplation. The ‘participation’ interests are divided into (a) ‘sympathetic,’ dealing with relations to other individuals; (b) ‘social,’ including the community as a whole; and (c) ‘religious,’ treating one’s relations to the Divine. Instruction must, therefore, develop all these interests, ‘Historical’ and ‘scientific’ subjects. and, to correspond with the two main groups, Herbart divides all studies into two branches,—the (1) ‘historical,’ including history, literature, and languages; and the (2) ‘scientific,’ embracing mathematics, as well as the natural sciences. Although recognizing the value of both groups, Herbart especially stressed the ‘historical,’ on the ground that history and literature are of greater importance as the sources of moral ideas and sentiments.

But, while all the subjects, ‘historical’ and ‘scientific,’ are needed for a ‘many-sided interest,’ and the various studies have for convenience been separated and classified by themselves, Herbart holds that they must be so arranged in the curriculum as to become unified and an organic whole, if the unity of the pupil’s consciousness is to be maintained. This position forecasts the emphasis ‘Correlation’ and ‘concentration.’ upon ‘correlation,’ or the unification of studies, so common among his followers. The principle was further developed by later Herbartians under the name of ‘concentration,’ or the unifying of all subjects around one or two common central studies, such as literature or history. But the selection and articulation of the subject-matter in such a way as to arouse many-sidedness and harmony is not more than hinted at by Herbart himself. He specifically holds, however, that the Odyssey should be the first work read, since this represents the interests and activities of the race while in its youth, and would appeal to the individual during the same stage. He would follow this with other Greek classics in the order of the growing complexity of racial interests depicted in them. This tentative endeavor of Herbart, in the selection of material for the course of study, to parallel the development of the individual with that of the race, was continued and enlarged by his disciples. It became ‘Culture epochs.’ especially definite and fixed in the ‘culture epochs’ theory formulated by Ziller and others.

But to secure this broad range of material and to unify and systematize it, Herbart realized that it was necessary to formulate a definite method of instructing the child. This plan of instruction he wished to conform to the development and working of the human mind, and on the basis of what he conceived this activity to be, he mapped out a method with four logical steps: (1) ‘clearness,’ the presentation of facts or elements to be learned; Four steps in Herbart’s method of instruction. (2) ‘association,’ the uniting of these with related facts previously acquired; (3) ‘system,’ the coherent and logical arrangement of what has been associated; and (4) ‘method,’ the practical application of the system by the pupil to new data. The formulation of this method was made only in principle by Herbart, but it has since been largely modified and developed by his followers. It was soon felt that, on the principle of ‘apperception,’ the pupil must first be made conscious of the existing stock of ideas so far as they are similar to the material to be presented, and that this can be accomplished by a review of preceding lessons or by an outline of what is to be undertaken, or by both procedures. Hence Herbart’s noted disciple, Ziller, divided the step of ‘clearness’ into ‘preparation’ and ‘presentation,’ and the more recent Herbartian, Rein, added ‘aim’ as a substep to ‘preparation.’ The names of the other three processes have been changed for the sake of greater lucidity and significance by still later Herbartians, and the ‘Five formal steps.’ ‘five formal steps of instruction’ are now given as (1) ‘preparation,’ (2) ‘presentation,’ (3) ‘comparison and abstraction,’ (4) ‘generalization,’ and (5) ‘application.’

The Value and Influence of Herbart’s Principles.—On all sides, then, as compared with Pestalozzi, Herbart was most logical and comprehensive. Where Pestalozzi obtained his methods solely from a sympathetic insight into the child mind, Herbart sought to found his also upon scientific principles. The former was primarily a philanthropist and reformer; the latter, a psychologist Clarified Pestalozzi’s vague principle of ‘observation’ through an ingenious psychology, and educationalist. Pestalozzi succeeded in arousing Europe to the need of universal education and of vitalizing the prevailing formalism in the schools, but he was unable with his vague and unsystematic utterances to give guidance and efficiency to the reform forces he had initiated. While he felt the need of beginning with sense perception for the sake of clear ideas, he had neither the time nor the training to construct a psychology beyond the traditional one of the times, nor to analyze the way in which the material gained by observation is assimilated. Herbart, on the other hand, did create a system of psychology that, while fanciful and mechanical, worked well as a basis for educational theory and practice. In keeping with this psychology, he undertook to show how the ideas, which were the product of the Pestalozzian ‘observation,’ were assimilated through ‘apperception,’ and maintained the possibility of making all material tend toward moral development. This, he held, could be accomplished by use of proper courses and methods. In determining the subjects to be selected and articulated, he considered Pestalozzi’s emphasis upon the study of the physical world to be merely a and made Pestalozzi’s emphasis on the physical world a stepping-stone to history and literature. stepping-stone to his own ‘moral revelation of the world.’ While the former educator made arithmetic, geography, natural science, reading, form study, drawing, writing, and music the object of his consideration, and is indirectly responsible for the modern reforms in teaching these subjects, Herbart preferred to stress history, languages, and literature, and, through his followers, brought about improved methods in their presentation. He also first undertook a careful analysis of the successive steps in all instruction, and by his methodical principles did much to introduce order and system into the work of the classroom, although it is now known that his conception of the way in which the human mind works is hardly tenable.

A great drawback to the Herbartian doctrines is found Formalization of followers, in their formalization and exaggeration. For these tendencies his enthusiastic and literal-minded followers, rather than Herbart himself, have probably been to blame. He was himself too keen an observer to allow his doctrines to go upon all fours. He is ordinarily credited by Herbartians with a psychology that takes no account of the innate characteristics of each mind, and holds that the mind is entirely built up by impressions from the outside, but, while this is his main position, he occasionally recognizes that there must be certain native but Herbart more sane and flexible. predispositions in the body which influence the soul in one direction or another. This limitation of complete plasticity by the pupil’s individuality, and of the consequent influence of the teacher, causes him to perceive that “in order to gain an adequate knowledge of each pupil’s capacity for education, observation is necessary—observation both of his thought masses and of his physical nature.” Again, while Herbart holds that every subject should, if possible, be presented in an attractive, interesting, and ‘almost playlike’ way, he does not justify that ‘sugar-coated interest’ which has so often put Herbartianism in bad odor. “A view that regards the end as a necessary evil to be rendered endurable by means of sweetmeats,” says he, “implies an utter confusion of ideas; and if pupils are not given serious tasks to perform, they will not find out what they are able to do.” Often, he realizes, “even the best method cannot secure an adequate degree of apperceiving attention from every pupil, and recourse must accordingly be had to the voluntary attention, i. e., to the pupil’s resolution.” Moreover, ‘correlation’ between different subjects, as well as between principles within the same subject, was advocated by Herbart, but he felt that the attempt to make such ramifications should not be unlimited. Further, while Herbart made some effort in shaping the course of study to parallel the development of the individual with that of the race, it was Ziller that erected this procedure into a hard and fast theory of ‘culture epochs.’ But most common of all has been the tendency of his disciples to pervert his attempt to bring about due sequence and arrangement into an inflexible schema in the recitation, and to make the formal steps an end rather than a means. Whereas, there is reason to believe that Herbart never intended that all these steps should be carried out in every recitation, but felt that they applied to the organization of any subject as a whole, and that years might even elapse between the various steps.

The Extension of His Doctrines in Germany.—At first the doctrines of Herbart were little known, but a quarter of a century after his death there sprang up two flourishing contemporary schools of Herbartianism. In its application of Herbart’s theory, the school of Stoy for the most part held closely to the original form; but Ziller greatly developed and popularized. that headed by Ziller departed further and gave it a more extreme interpretation. Tuiskon Ziller (1817-1882), both as teacher in a gymnasium and as professor at Leipzig, did much to popularize and develop Herbart’s system. Through him was formed the Herbartian society known as the ‘Association for the Scientific Study of Education,’ which has since spread throughout Germany. He it was that elaborated the doctrines of ‘correlation’ and ‘concentration,’ and first definitely formulated the ‘culture epochs’ theory. “Every pupil should,” he writes, “pass successively through each of the chief epochs of the general mental development of mankind suitable to his stage of development. The material of instruction, therefore, should be drawn from the thought material of that stage of historical development in culture, which runs parallel with the present mental stage of the pupil.” All these principles Ziller worked out in a curriculum for the eight years of the elementary school, which he centered around fairy tales, Robinson Crusoe, and selections from the Old and New Testaments. He, moreover, developed Herbart’s ‘formal stages of instruction’ by dividing the first step and changing the name of the last.

Stoy’s practice school at Jena,

Karl Volkmar Stoy (1815-1885), the founder of the other school, gave himself simply to a forceful restatement of the master’s positions, but also established a most influential pedagogical seminary and practice school upon the original Herbartian basis at Jena. And eleven years later, Wilhelm Rein (1847- ), who had been continued by Rein. a pupil of both Stoy and Ziller, succeeded the former in the direction of the practice school, and introduced there the elaborate development that had taken place since Herbart’s time. He adopted Ziller’s ‘concentration,’ ‘culture epochs,’ and other features, but made them a little more elastic by coördinating other material with the ‘historical’ center in the curriculum. Through him Jena became known as the great seat of Herbartianism. Other Germans to develop the principles of Herbart Lange and Frick. have been Lange and Frick. The Apperception of Karl Lange is an excellent combination of scientific insight and popular presentation. Otto Frick, director of the ‘Francke Institutions’ at Halle (see p. 176), inclining more to the close interpretation of Stoy, devoted himself to applying Herbartianism to the secondary schools, and outlined a course for the gymnasium.

In Germany content and methods of education were greatly modified.

A throng of other German schoolmasters and professors have further adapted the doctrines of Herbart to school practice, and while their theories differ very largely from one another, from their common basis they are all properly designated ‘Herbartian.’ As a result of this continuous propaganda, the content and methods of the school curricula in Germany have been largely modified. Herbart’s emphasis upon the importance to the secondary schools of literary and historical studies as a moral training has been adapted to the elementary schools by the later Herbartians in the form of story and biographical material. History has consequently attained a more prominent place in the curriculum, and is no longer auxiliary to reading Prominence given to history and literature. and geography. It is regarded as a means of moral development, and the cultural features in the history of the German people are stressed more than the political. Ziller’s plan for concentrating all studies about a core of history and literature, on the ground of thus producing ‘a moral revelation of the world’ for the pupil, is in evidence everywhere. A twofold course,—Jewish history through Bible stories, and German history in the form of legends and tales, appears in every grade of the elementary school after the first two, and even in these lower classes there is some attempt to utilize literature as a moral training through the medium of fairy stories, fables, moral tales, Robinson Crusoe, and the various stories of the philanthropinists (see p. 225).

Herbartianism in the United States.—Next to the land of its birth, the United States has been more influenced by Herbartianism than any other country. Before 1880 there were but few notices of Herbartianism in American educational literature, and not many appeared American teachers who studied at Jena introduced Herbartianism into the United States. during the following decade. The movement was fostered largely by American teachers that were studying with Rein at Jena during the last two decades of the century. Before 1890 nine Americans had taken their degree there, and by the twentieth century more than fifty. These young men came back filled with the enthusiastic belief that Herbartian principles could supply a solution in systematic form for the many complicated problems with which American education was then grappling, and began at once to propagate their Northern Illinois the center. faith. The movement centered chiefly in northern Illinois and was especially strong in the normal schools. The staff of the State Normal University at this time included Charles DeGarmo, afterward professor of Education at Cornell, Frank M. McMurry, now of the Teachers College, Columbia University, and his brother, Charles A. McMurry, now of the faculty of the George Peabody College for Teachers; and the practice school at the Normal University was the first to be established upon Herbartian principles. The Schoolmasters’ Club of Illinois gave much of its time to a discussion of Herbartian principles, and the first Herbartian literature in the United States was rapidly produced. During the last decade of the century there appeared large numbers of articles, textbooks, treatises, and translations, including The Method of the Recitation and a variety of other works upon general and special methods by the McMurrys. In 1892 The Herbart Club was founded to promote a study of Herbartian principles and adapt them to American conditions, and during the first three years it spent its efforts in translating the words of Herbart The Herbart Society and its Year Book. and in discussing Herbartian topics only. In 1895 the name of the club was changed to the Herbart Society for the Scientific Study of Education, many non-Herbartians were admitted, the scope of the discussions was enlarged, and the publication of a Year Book was begun.

Then began the period of criticism and the formulation of American Herbartianism. The movement was Opposition, vigorously opposed by many on the ground that it was a foreign importation, was based upon absurd metaphysical presuppositions, or contained nothing new, but the disciples of Herbart stood valiantly by their guns. Although not always certain in their own minds, they endeavored to clear up all misunderstanding and confusion in the doctrines and to keep them practical through developing them in connection with actual experiments in teaching. They showed that the fanciful psychology of Herbart did not hold a determining place in his educational thought, and that it might be rejected, without affecting the merit of his pedagogy. One by one the doctrines were introduced in the order of their concreteness,—five but growth of the movement. formal steps, apperception, concentration, interest—and little attempt was made to weave them into a single system. The critical season did not long endure, and the movement soon spread widely. By the close of the first year the Herbart Society had a membership of seven hundred, and the Herbartian principles were everywhere studied by local clubs and taught in schools and universities. In the report of the United States Commissioner of Education for 1894-1895, Dr. Harris stated: “There are at present more adherents of Herbart in the United States than in Germany.” This, he believed, was due to the greater freedom of discussion that was allowed. The movement not only became an educational awakening, but it attained almost to the Herbartian features adopted by others. proportions of a cult. Moreover, many who hardly considered themselves Herbartians undertook to modify and adapt the Herbartian principles, especially ‘correlation’ and ‘concentration.’ Francis W. Parker of Chicago, for example, among the phases of his educational practice (cf. [pp. 293] and 364), approached concentration so closely as to center the entire course of study around a hierarchy of natural and social sciences. And the Committees of Ten and Fifteen, appointed by the National Education Association to report upon secondary and elementary education respectively, showed a strong Herbartian influence in their recommendations of correlation.

Largely in consequence of the development of Herbartianism, an increased amount and larger utilization of Amount of history increased in American schools, historical material became general also in American elementary schools. A wide appreciation of the growth of morality, culture, and social life, rather than merely the development of patriotism, became the object in studying this subject. English and German history, as well as American, which alone was formerly taught, and sometimes Greek, Roman, and Norse, appear in the curricula of many elementary schools, and, instead of being confined to the two upper classes, historical material is often presented from the third grade up. Biographical and historical stories are largely employed in the lower classes, while in the upper some attempt is made to use European history as a setting for American. A similar and wide survey of literature encouraged. development in the amount and use of literature also has appeared in the course of the elementary schools, partly as a result of the Herbartian influence. Instead of brief selections from the English and American writers, or the poorer material that formerly appeared in the school readers, complete works of literature have begun to be studied in the elementary curriculum, and a wide and rapid survey of the great English classics has been encouraged in the place of merely reading for the sake of oral expression. Even in the lowest grades some attempt to introduce the classics of childhood has been made.

While in these ways all elementary, and to some extent secondary, schools have been affected, Herbartianism pure and simple has largely been abandoned for less dogmatic methods. Even the Herbart Society has ceased to foster a propaganda, and has since 1901 dropped the first part of its name and been known as ‘The National Society for the Scientific Study of Education.’ The later works of DeGarmo and Frank M. McMurry claim to be quite emancipated from Herbartianism. But, although professed Herbartians are now almost unknown in the United States, no other system of pedagogy, except that of Pestalozzi, has ever had so wide an influence upon American education and upon the thought and practice of teachers generally.

Froebel’s Early Life.—Let us now turn to Froebel, the other great successor of Pestalozzi, and to his development and extension of the master’s principle of ‘natural development.’ Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel (1782-1852) was born in a village of the Thüringian forest. He tells us that this environment started within him a search for the mystic unity that he believed to exist amid the various phenomena of nature, but it is more likely that this attitude was developed through a brief residence Search for ‘unity’ developed through idealism, romanticism, and ‘nature philosophy’ at Jena. (1799-1800) at the University of Jena. The atmosphere about this institution was charged with the idealistic philosophy, the romantic movement, and the evolutionary attitude in science. Froebel could not have escaped the constant discussions upon the philosophy of Fichte and Schelling. He must likewise have fallen under the spell of the Jena romanticists,—the Schlegels, Tieck, and Novalis. The advanced attitude in science at Jena may also have impressed the youth. While much of the science instruction failed to make clear that inner relation and mystic unity for which he sought, he must occasionally have caught glimpses of it in the lectures of professors belonging to the school of Natur-philosophie.

His Experiences at Frankfort, Yverdon, and Berlin.—After leaving the university, Froebel was for four years groping for a niche in life. But he eventually (1805) met Anton Grüner, head of a Pestalozzian model school at Adoption of teaching. Frankfort, who persuaded him of his fitness for teaching and gave him a position in the institution. Here he undertook a systematic study of Pestalozzianism, and, through the use of modeling in paper, pasteboard, and wood with his pupils, he came to see the value of motor Study with Pestalozzi. expression as a means of education. He then withdrew to Yverdon and worked with Pestalozzi himself for two years (1808-1810). There he greatly increased his knowledge of the play and development of children, music, and nature study, which were to play so important a part in his methods. Next, he went to the University of Berlin to study mineralogy with Professor Crystallization of law of ‘unity.’ Weiss, and through the work there he finally crystallized his mystic law of ‘unity.’ He became fully “convinced of the demonstrable connection in all cosmic development,” and declared that “thereafter my rocks and crystals served me as a mirror wherein I might discern mankind, and man’s development and history.”

The School at Keilhau.—While at Berlin, he met his lifelong assistants, Langethal and Middendorf, and took them with him when he undertook the education of his five young nephews at Keilhau. Here he founded (1816) Self-expression through play and practical work. ‘The Universal German Institute of Education,’ in which self-expression, free development, and social participation were ruling principles. Much of the training was obtained through play, and, except that the pupils were older, the germ of the kindergarten was already present. There was much practical work in the open air, in the garden about the schoolhouse, and in the building itself. The children built dams and mills, fortresses and castles, and searched the woods for animals, birds, insects, and flowers. To popularize the institute, Froebel published a complete account of the theory Education of Man. practiced at Keilhau in his famous Education of Man (1826). While this work is compressed, repetitious, and vague, and its doctrines had afterward to be corrected by experience, it contains the most systematic statement of his educational philosophy that Froebel ever made.

Development of the Kindergarten.—But the school at Keilhau was too radical for the times, and soon found In Switzerland he began to devise playthings, games, and songs. itself in serious straits. Froebel then went to Switzerland, and for five years (1832-1837) continued his educational experiments in various locations there. While conducting a model school at Burgdorf, it became obvious to him that “all school education was yet without a proper initial foundation, and that, until the education of the nursery was reformed, nothing solid and worthy could be attained.” The School of Infancy of Comenius (see p. 171) had been called to his attention, and the educational importance of play had come to appeal to him more strongly than ever. He began to study and devise playthings, games, songs, and bodily movements that would be of value in the development of small children, although at first he did not organize his materials into a system. Then, two years later, he returned to Germany, and established a school for children between the ages of three and seven. This institution was First kindergarten at Blankenburg. located at Blankenburg, two miles from Keilhau, one of the most romantic spots in the Thüringian Forest, and was, before long, appropriately christened ‘Kindergarten’ (i. e., garden in which children are the unfolding plants). Here he put into use the material he had invented in Switzerland, added new devices, and developed his system. The main features of this were the ‘play songs’ for mother and child and the series of ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ (see [pp. 358] f.). During his seven years in Blankenburg, he constantly expanded his material, and the accounts of these additions have been collected in Later works. the works known generally as Pedagogics of the Kindergarten, Education by Development, and Mother Play and Nursery Songs.

While the kindergarten attracted considerable attention, Froebel’s want of financial ability eventually compelled him to close the institution. After lecturing with much success for five years upon his system, he settled for the rest of his life near the famous mineral springs Final work at Liebenstein, and the Baroness von Bülow. at Liebenstein in Saxe-Meiningen. During this period he obtained the friendship and support of the Baroness von Marenholtz-Bülow, who brought a large number of people of distinction in the political and educational world to see his work in operation, and wrote most interesting Reminiscences of Froebel’s activities during the last thirteen years of his life. But owing to a confusion of his principles with the socialistic doctrines of his nephew, Karl, a decree was promulgated in Prussia by the minister of education, closing all kindergartens there. Froebel never recovered from this unjust humiliation, and died within a year.

Froebel’s Fundamental Concept of ‘Unity.’—While Froebel’s underlying principles go back to the developmental aspect of Pestalozzi’s doctrines and even to Developed from Pestalozzi and even Rousseau, Rousseau’s naturalism, his conception of them, his imagery, and statement, seem to be a product of the idealistic philosophy, romantic movement, and scientific attitude of the day. These tendencies seem to have been assimilated by Froebel largely through his residence in Jena and Berlin. His conclusions as to educational theory and practice would have been possible as inferences from a very different point of view, but as he developed them logically and consistently with his metaphysical but largely a resultant of his university environment. position, it may be of value to consider briefly the groundwork of the Froebelian philosophy. He regarded the ‘Absolute,’ or God, as the self-conscious spirit from which originated both man and nature, and he consequently held to the unity of nature with the soul of man. His fundamental view of this organic unity appears in his general conception of the universe: “In all things,” says he, “there lives and reigns an eternal law. This all-controlling law is necessarily based on an all-pervading, energetic, living, self-conscious, and hence eternal Unity. This Unity is God. All things have come from the Divine Unity, from God, and have their origin in the Divine Unity, in God alone. All things live and have their being in and through the Divine Unity, in and through God. The divine effluence that lives in each thing is the essence of each thing.” This fundamental mystic principle Froebel constantly Reiterations and subsidiary concepts. reiterates in various forms, and from it derives a number of subsidiary conceptions. These, however, play but a small part in his actual practice, and scarcely require consideration here.

Motor Expression as His Method.—But Froebel also holds that, “while in every human being there lives humanity as a whole, in each one it is realized and expressed in a wholly particular, peculiar, personal, and unique manner.” Thus he maintains that there is in every person at birth a coördinated, unified plan of his mature character, and that, if it is not marred or interfered with, it will develop naturally of itself. While he is not entirely Education should be ‘following.’ consistent, and at times implies that this natural development must be guided and even shaped, in the main he reiterates Rousseau’s doctrine that ‘nature is right,’ and clearly stands for a full and free expression of the instincts and impulses. Hence he insists that “education in instruction and training should necessarily be passive, following; not prescriptive, categorical, interfering.” But in his conclusion as to the proper method for accomplishing this ‘development,’ Froebel naturally holds that it “should be brought about not in the way of dead imitation or mere copying, but in the way of living, spontaneous self-activity.” By this principle of ‘Self-activity.’ ‘self-activity’ as the method of education Froebel seeks not simply activity in response to suggestion or instruction from parents or teachers, but activity of the child in carrying out his own impulses and decisions. Individuality must be developed by such activity, and self-hood given its rightful place as the guide to the child’s powers when exercised in learning. Hence with this idea of development through ‘self-activity’ is connected ‘Creativeness.’ his principle of ‘creativeness,’ by which new forms and combinations are made and expression is given to new images and ideas. “Plastic material representation in life and through doing, united with thought and speech,” he declares, “is by far more developing and cultivating than the merely verbal representation of ideas.”

The Social Aspect of Education.—His emphasis upon this psychological principle of motor expression under the head of ‘self-activity’ and ‘creativeness’ is the chief characteristic of Froebel’s method. Rousseau had also recommended motor activity as a means of learning, but he had insisted upon an isolated and unsocial education for Emile, whereas Froebel stresses the social aspects of education quite as clearly as he does the principle Self-realization through social participation. of self-expression. In fact, he holds that increasing self-realization, or individualization through ‘self-activity,’ must come through a process of socialization. The social instinct is primal, and the individual can be truly educated only in the company of other human beings. The life of the individual is necessarily bound up with participation in institutional life. Each one of the various institutions of society in which the mentality of the race has manifested itself—the home, the school, the church, the vocation, the state—becomes a medium for the activity of the individual, and at the same time a means of social control. As far as the child enters into the surrounding life, he is to receive the development Coöperative activities in play. needed for the present, and thereby also to be prepared for the future. Through imitation of coöperative activities in play, he obtains not only physical, but intellectual and moral training. Such a moral and intellectual atmosphere Froebel sought to cultivate at Keilhau by coöperation in domestic labor,—‘lifting, pulling, carrying, digging, splitting,’ and through coöperative construction out of blocks of a chapel, castle, and other features of a village. Similarly, the kindergarten was intended to “represent a miniature state for children, in which the young citizen can learn to move freely, but with consideration for his little fellows.”

The Kindergarten.—Beside his basal principles of motor expression and social participation, Froebel made a third contribution to educational practice in advocating as a means of realizing these principles a school without books or set intellectual tasks, and permeated with play, A school without books or set tasks as his third contribution. freedom, and joy. In the kindergarten, ‘self-activity’ and ‘creativeness,’ together with social coöperation, found complete application and concrete expression. The training there has always consisted of three coördinate forms of expression: (1) song, (2) movement and gesture, and (3) construction; and mingled with these and growing out of each is the use of language by the child. But these means, while separate, often coöperate with and interpret one another, and the process is connected as an organic whole. For example, when the story is told or read, it is expressed in song, dramatized in movement and gesture, and illustrated by a construction from blocks, paper, clay, or other material.

Mother Play.

The Mother Play and Nursery Songs were intended to exercise the infant’s senses, limbs, and muscles, and, through the loving union between mother and child, draw both into intelligent and agreeable relations with the common objects of life about them. The fifty ‘play songs’ are each connected with some simple nursery game, like ‘pat-a-cake,’ ‘hide-and-seek,’ or the imitation of some trade ([Fig. 43]), and are intended to correspond to a special physical, mental, or moral need of the child. The selection and order of the songs were determined with reference to the child’s development, which ranges from almost reflex and instinctive movements up to an ability to represent his perceptions with drawings, accompanied by considerable growth of the moral sense. Each song contains three parts: (1) a motto for the guidance of the mother; (2) a verse with the accompanying music, to sing to the child; and (3) a picture illustrating the verse.

‘Gifts,’—

The ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ were both intended to stimulate motor expression, but the ‘gifts’ combine and rearrange certain definite material without changing the form, while the ‘occupations’ reshape, modify, and transform their material. The emphasis in kindergarten practice has come to be transferred from the ‘gifts’ to the ‘occupations,’ which have been largely increased in first, range and number. Of the ‘gifts,’ the first consists of a box of six woolen balls of different colors. They are to be rolled about in play, and thus develop ideas of color, material, form, motion, direction, and muscular sensibility. A sphere, cube, and cylinder of hard wood compose second, the second ‘gift.’ Here, therefore, are found a known factor in the sphere and an unknown one in the cube. A comparison is made of the stability of the cube with the movability of the sphere, and the two are harmonized in the cylinder, which possesses the characteristics third, of each. The third ‘gift’ is a large wooden cube divided into eight equal cubes, thus teaching the relations of the parts to the whole and to one another, and making possible original constructions, such as armchairs, and the other three, benches, thrones, doorways, monuments, or steps. The three following ‘gifts’ divide the cube in various ways so as to produce solid bodies of different types and sizes, and excite an interest in number, relation, and form. From them the children are encouraged to construct geometrical figures and ‘forms of beauty’ or artistic designs. Beside the six regular ‘gifts,’ he also added ‘tablets,’ ‘sticks,’ and ‘rings,’ sometimes known as ‘gifts seven to nine.’ This material introduces surfaces, lines, and points in contrast with the preceding solids, and brings out the relations of area, outline, and and ‘occupations.’ circumference to volume. The ‘occupations’ comprise a long list of constructions with paper, sand, clay, wood, and other materials. Corresponding with the ‘gifts’ that deal with solids, may be grouped ‘occupations’ in clay modeling, cardboard cutting, paper folding, and wood carving; and with those of surfaces may be associated mat and paper weaving, stick shaping, sewing, bead threading, paper pricking, and drawing.

The Value and Influence of Froebel’s Principles.—For one pursuing destructive criticism only, it would not be difficult to find flaws in both the theory and practice of Froebel. In the Mother Play the pictures are rough Superficial faults, and poorly drawn, the music is crude, and the verses are lacking in rhythm, poetic spirit, and diction ([Fig. 43]). But the illustrations and songs served well the interests and needs of those for whom they were produced, and Froebel himself was not insistent that they should be used after more satisfactory compositions were found. Other criticism of his material has been made on the ground that it was especially adapted to German ideals, German children, and the relatively simple village life of Froebel’s bondage to local ideals, experience, and that it needs considerable modification to suit other countries and the industrial organization and formal discipline. of society to-day. Also the argument of ‘formal discipline’ for care and accuracy in the use of the gifts, and the insistence upon the employment of every part of each gift upon all occasions in the exact order mentioned by Froebel, have been shown to violate the principles of modern psychology. His more liberal disciples, however, realize that it is the spirit of his underlying principles, and not the letter of his practice, that should be followed, and have constantly struggled to keep the kindergarten matter and methods in harmony with the times and the environment.