(b) The Study of the New Lesson.
If the opening part of the recitation has been properly done, the transition to the new lesson will be an easy and natural one, and the connection with the past will be well established. The teacher now has the opportunity to test the pupils’ understanding of the new topic and to draw them out in discussion concerning the information in the text-book, source book, and collateral reading assigned for the day. The teacher’s questions should be carefully thought out, and should call for answers in which the information is given in connection with its historical importance and significance rather than as mere facts that have been memorized for recitation. All direct questions, calling for a “yes” or “no” answer should be avoided, for with such a question before him the student has an equal chance to be right as well as to be wrong. Almost equally bad are questions that call merely for a name or a date. Instead of asking: “Was Rome able to defend herself from the Visigoths?” time will be saved by asking: “Why did Rome find it difficult to meet the Visigothic attack,” and, instead of asking “Who was the leader of the Visigoths?”—a fact which every pupil should know—a better question would be: “What caused the Visigoths to invade Italy?” While it is important that the teacher’s questions should be clear, yet it is not a bad thing pedagogically to ask a question that requires some thought on the part of the pupil before it is answered. Pupils frequently say: “I don’t understand your question,” and sometimes this answer is justified, more frequently, however, it is the pupil’s own inattention, and the majority of the class will understand the question and be able to answer it correctly. The harder questions a teacher asks in the way of calling for thoughtful interpretation the better training students are getting.
In the matter of the relative contribution of teacher and class to the discussion, it may be said that a teacher who talks too little is as bad as a teacher who talks too much. As a general rule the college graduate teaching history who is well informed in his subject matter tends to talk too much in the class room, and his study of the new lesson is more of a lecture than a recitation. As an observer of such a teacher remarked, “The young man made a very good recitation himself, while the class listened.” On the other hand, the teacher who has less background of historical knowledge is inclined to make the class do all the work while he or she acts as inquisitor and perpetual question mark. Nothing is contributed in the way of information or interpretation save what the pupils have acquired from the text-book, and the result is an unscholarly and rather barren drill. The true history teacher will mingle knowledge with method, and will add to and amplify the subject matter by taking part sympathetically in the recitation, without, however, monopolizing the discussion. In calling on members of the class to take part in the discussion, attention should be given to those who need it most, rather than to the bright and well-informed pupils. The dull or inattentive pupil, who is whispering to his neighbor or not paying proper attention, needs more real teaching than the bright boy or girl. The interest of all members of the class should be aroused, and voluntary questions, discussions and debates encouraged rather than discouraged. If the pupils are inattentive and uninterested, it is certainly a criticism of the teacher and of his or her power of exposition and interrogation.
Much of the success of the recitation on the new lesson will depend on the way the subject matter is handled. Some leading idea or problem should form the center of the discussion, which should take the form of saving or explaining the question in an historically true manner by bringing out the main points of development. In the course of such a discussion the application of the topic to present conditions and its relation to the past should be kept in mind and questions asked from both viewpoints. This applies particularly to topics in medieval and modern, English and American history fields which are, on the whole, more closely connected with modern civilization than the field of ancient history can possibly be. If the problem studied is practically completed in the lesson for the day, and a new topic to be taken up next time, then a summary should be made at the end of this part of the recitation. If, however, the same line of historical development is to be studied next day, such a summary will form part of the next recitation. Thus the question of a summary at the close of the recitation on the new lesson depends on the nature of the next lesson to be studied.