THE OPENING DAYS OF A HISTORY COURSE.
There is no more important time in the whole year’s work than the first few class exercises. In these days administrative details are to be attended to, new students are coming in late, the weather is hot, and the students are unaccustomed to study; all these and many other distractions tend to prevent the smooth running of the class work. There is a temptation to laxness both on the part of student and of instructor; and many a good instructor’s work is made more difficult in the next few weeks because he and his class did not begin aright. Instead of slighting the work of these opening days, the teacher should treat it more carefully, and plan it more definitely than any other part of the course.
In the first place the teacher must be sure to make a good impression upon his class in the opening days,—a good impression not in the purely personal sense, but in the pedagogical sense of winning respect for his position, maintaining the dignity of his subject, and awakening the interest of his students. Such a good impression is to be gained not by amusing the students, nor by witty cynicisms, nor by severe discipline alone. There must be a combination of tact and strength, of sympathy and precision; above all there should be nothing in the dress, attitude, or language of the teacher which will lead the students to ridicule him.
Secondly, the opportunity should be taken in the opening days to impress clearly upon the class the character of the work to be required of them. There should be a frank understanding between teacher and scholar upon the methods of acquiring knowledge, the methods of keeping notes, the forms of recitations, tests, and examinations, and the occasional use of reports, maps, debates, or lectures. The teacher should know exactly what he or she intends doing, and he should, so far as is necessary for the proper conduct of the class, explain his plans to the class. Better be too definite upon this point, than not to give enough. Of course, it is not best to take out altogether the element of surprise from the work; but this element can best be given by the nature of the subject matter as it unfolds before the class, rather than by sudden changes in the method of conducting the class.
Another important topic to be considered at the beginning of the course is the reason for the study of the chosen field of history. Of what value is this particular story? What influence has this country had upon the world’s history? How has this influence persisted down into the student’s own life? The pupil’s interest should be aroused by showing the relation of the period to be studied to the civilization of his own nation. If the study is Grecian history, for instance, the teacher can show the influence of Greek literature and religion upon our own literature; the influence of Greek philosophy and science upon the Middle Ages and ultimately upon ourselves; and the influence of Greek art, particularly in architecture, throughout this country, which, through its passion for Greek democracy, has copied extensively not only Greek names of persons and places, but also all of its styles of architecture and decoration.
Next, the teacher should take up the geography of the country to be studied; pointing out its situation upon the general map of the world, its coast-lines, its rivers and mountains, its natural products, its lines of trade and communication. In nearly all the countries he must study there will be seen a geographical unity which can be easily comprehended by the student. Mesopotamia, the Nile Valley, Greece, the Mediterranean world, and England all possess a geographical simplicity which appeals to the weakest student. In the case of European history and American history the case is somewhat complicated by the variety of geographical conditions; but this very variety should be shown to be one of the reasons for the subsequent splitting of Europe into separate states, and for the variation of political and social ideals throughout the United States.
Lastly, before approaching his proper subject, the history teacher should relate his chosen field of history to that of previous nations. This work is usually done for the teacher by the text-book makers. In English history we have chapters upon pre-historic man, the Britons, and the Romans, before the Anglo-Saxons are reached; in ancient history the relation of the Greeks to earlier civilizations is discussed; in European history, the Roman Empire or Charlemagne’s Empire will be presented; while in American history we have the great problem of the European background.
If the teacher has successfully thought out these several introductory topics, and presented them well to the class, then the pupils will be ready to enter upon their study with force and interest. They should have acquired respect for the instructor; have become certain of what is expected of them; have gained interest because the study touches their own life; and have obtained the antecedent geographical and historical knowledge necessary to a good understanding of the subject.
[The Field of the Magazine]
DISCUSSED IN A LETTER FROM PROFESSOR ANDREW C. McLAUGHLIN, HEAD OF HISTORY DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Editor The History Teacher’s Magazine:
A magazine devoted to the interests and the problems of the history teacher ought to be of service. We all have so much to learn, our tasks are so perplexing and trying, that we can profit much by the experience of others and gain something by discussion and exchange of opinions. This is true even if we admit that all can not follow the same route and use the same methods, and that, in history teaching, success depends in a peculiar degree on character, aptitude, and native skill. We are in special need of helpful discussion, because we are still considering the elementary phases of our profession; we are not confident of the curriculum; we have no clear common opinion as to the purpose and end of historical instruction; we are pondering dubiously the problems that have long since been solved for other studies in the program. In such respects we are notably far behind the teachers of the classics, mathematics or physics; in fact, we are probably behind the teachers of all other subjects commonly taught in the schools, for, despite the grumblings and complaints of the ubiquitous critic, English itself, our former companion in unhappiness, has found a régime and a method and is gaining in confidence and self-respect. We are further along, it is true, than we were a decade ago; but we are far from agreement and still further from perfection.
I sometimes think when I grow weary of the interminable discussion of the history curriculum that there is no need of our trying to establish anything like uniformity, and that the safest and easiest way is to tell every program-maker to go his own way and every teacher to do what he likes; but I know that such despondency is weakness, that in all probability we can reach substantial agreement, and that, until we have a general, if incomplete, consensus concerning the sequence of studies from kindergarten to university, we cannot discuss, as we should, many other topics that demand consideration. We must remember, too, when we find ourselves involved in wearying argument about the mere framework of the curriculum, that history as an educational subject is but a child of yesterday—or to-morrow; and that it has to find its place and justify itself by results, in competition with subjects like Latin, which have been taught ever since the Renaissance, or indeed ever since flogging Orbilius applied the stimulating birch to Horace. And so, we must be patient as well as eager and appreciate the difficulties of our problem.
There are so many topics pressing for immediate consideration that I am tempted to prolong what I mean to be a brief letter into a catalogue of our necessities; but I will allow myself only one word. There is a wide-spread complaint that, with all the time given to history, much more time than was commonly given ten years ago, pupils leave the high schools with indefinite knowledge—I had almost said with indefinite ignorance—of the subject. College teachers are perplexed and discouraged by the frailty and inaccuracy of the students’ attainments when the students first appear in their classes; perhaps there is like cause for discouragement when they disappear from their classes. The cold fact is that our boys and girls too often do not have distinct, decided, accurate information; but have aptitude in guessing, supposing, and approximating. The first thing, then, that we need to consider is this: Can we make the most and get the best from the newer methods of teaching? Can we teach students to handle books and to think as well as remember? Can we give them the historical idea and the historical point of view? Can we stimulate them to read and arouse their imagination? Can we do these things, and still be sure that this information is exact, that they have reverence for truth, and that what they have learned is firmly fastened in their minds? If we cannot, I fear that sooner or later we shall all slip back quickly into the old rote method and make each day’s lesson an unalloyed grind on an unvarying modicum of unadorned and unadorning fact; and when we do slip back thus far, we might as well slip out of the school room altogether, for there is no time or place in the school for history instruction that is content with stuffing minds with dates and names. Our task, then, is to get and to give all the educational value of history; and experience proves that the task is a heavy one. We all hope that the new journal will help us lift the load and carry it.
Cordially, A. C. McLaughlin.
[History in the Summer Schools]
The summer school admittedly is organized for the benefit of teachers who wish to gain intellectually, or advance themselves in their profession by study in the vacation time. There are indeed in the summer school regular students who are making up conditions, or ambitious undergraduates seeking to shorten their course; but these are a negligible quantity.
Glancing through the announcements of some twenty-five of these summer schools, located from Maine to California and from Minnesota to Louisiana, one notices that the history courses fall into three groups. First, and most numerous is the group containing the usual college work in history. In many respects these courses are valuable for the teacher-student; they ignore his official position, and treating him impersonally, simply place him as student before the historical material. He gains not only by virtue of the cultural value of his study, but by the reversal of his usual position.
In the second group of courses may be mentioned those which deal with American local history. Professor Dodd at the University of Chicago gives a course in the history of the South, and a seminar in the history of Secession; Professor J. L. Couger at the University of Illinois, gives a history of nullification; Professor W. L. Fleming, of the University of Louisiana, gives a course in the history of Louisiana, and Professor U. B. Phillips, at Tulane University, one in the history of the South. There are several announcements of classes in the Reconstruction period. The history of the West is presented by Professor Turner at Wisconsin, and Professor F. L. Paxson at the University of Chicago. Courses in the history of Mexico and of Spain are given by Prof. E. A. Chavey at the University of California.
The courses in the third group are concerned with the methods of teaching history and civil government. The purpose of such work is well expressed in Professor G. C. Sellery’s announcement of his course in the University of Wisconsin: “The primary object of the course is to lay the foundation for a method which will enable high-school teachers to assign and pupils to prepare history work with definiteness and effectiveness.” Broader in plan is the course of Professor George L. Burr at Cornell, which discusses “what history is, what it is for, what are its materials and its methods, what its relations to neighbor studies, how to read history, how to study it, how to teach it, how to write it.” Less of the theory and more of the practical is given in such courses as those of Dr. James Sullivan, at Harvard; Professor Scholz, at the University of California; Professor Trenholme, at University of Missouri; Professor Robertson, at Indiana University; Dr. Arthur M. Wolfson, at Tennessee, and that of Professor Fleming, at Louisiana.
Methods of teaching civil government are discussed by Dr. Reed, at California; Dr. Lunt, at Harvard; Professor Woodburn, at Cornell, and Prof. Schaper, at Minnesota.
[One Use of Sources in the Teaching of History]
PROFESSOR FRED MORROW FLING, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA.
I have been asked to write an article explaining “just how a source book is to be used, its relation to the text-book, the kind of information and the kind of training a careful teacher can impart through it and the advantage it offers over the exclusive use of secondary material.” Instead of answering the whole question and treating of all the uses of the source book, it seemed wise to treat but one, the most characteristic use to which the sources could be put, namely, the critical study of sources as evidence, for the purpose of training the pupil in the methods of historical proof. The importance that I attach to this matter of method is due to my conception of educational theory and of the logic of historical science. About this broader basis upon which the teaching of history must rest, it may be well to say a word by way of preface.