The object-teaching movement made little progress until it was taken up in 1860 by Dr. Sheldon, the head of the normal school at Oswego, New York. From Oswego the movement spread, especially to the new Western schools, and had so wide an influence that the study of nature in the lower schools was vigorously advocated and extensively undertaken. The inductive method of direct contact with the facts was advocated in fields other than nature study. Dr. Sheldon’s daughter took a vigorous part in the development of instruction in history based on direct contact with source material. The laboratory method in history, as it was sometimes called, spread and inspired enthusiasm for methods in all the literary subjects analogous to the laboratory work of the sciences.
Laboratory Method in Physics
In the high schools a parallel movement took place in the last third of the nineteenth century, leading to the adoption of laboratory work as a definite mode of instruction. On this subject one writer on the history of physics has given the following statements:
Experimental work had not been entirely unknown in secondary schools even in the early part of the century, but no attempt had been made to bring the pupil into personal contact with its results. The Boston Grammar Schools were all furnished with a $275 set of physical apparatus as early as 1837, and most of the academies installed sets about that time, but the apparatus was for the use of the instructor only, the pupils not being allowed to handle it. And this condition existed to within about thirty years of the end of the century, when the agitation for individual laboratory work began.
This period of agitation was marked by the beginning of some laboratory work and the discussion of the value of individual work and the inductive method by educators. But there was no general adoption of the plan till a later period. It was about this time that David Starr Jordan accepted the chair of Natural History in an Illinois college and attempted to establish a chemical laboratory. His attempt was promptly vetoed by the board of trustees....
In the report from the Albany, N.Y., City School, for 1882, the Superintendent recommended that a whole year be given to the study of physics with opportunity for daily experiments, the class participating in the experiments as far as practicable. The report of 1882-1883 from the Washington, D.C., High School, states that laboratories have been fitted up. Indianapolis reported in 1883 that the experimental method had been introduced and was meeting with approval from both teacher and pupil. Cincinnati reported in 1882 that physics was taught from a syllabus four hours a week during the third year. St. Louis reported physics taught through the second year of the high school. The reports show only qualitative experiments....
The general trend of accumulated opinion in 1884 shows increased favor of the idea that mental discipline is the chief aim in physics teaching. There was a general notion that the study of physics ought to train the pupil to think, but as to what method should be used to bring about this result there was no settled opinion. Laboratory work meant anything from a few simple demonstrations by the teacher to a complete individual laboratory course, such as is given at the present day.
For the next fifteen years, physics teaching, in fact, science teaching in general, was in an experimental stage. In the effort to make science a disciplinary study, the laboratory method was coming into general use rapidly, but the old idea of making science include everything in reach—a remnant of the Natural Philosophy stage—had prevented its becoming a really disciplinary study. We find David Starr Jordan in 1889 lamenting the superficial way in which science was taught.[77]
Spread of the Laboratory Idea
The historical statements given above show how recent is the acceptance of the laboratory method even in science teaching. The enthusiasm for the method is as impressive as its youth. It would be impossible to turn the present generation of science teachers away from the laboratory method of teaching. In spite of its cumbersomeness of administration, its demand for expensive equipment, and the deliberation which it compels in teaching the results of science, the laboratory method is everywhere accepted as the true method. Indeed, as stated above, the literary subjects such as history and English, the latter especially in the teaching of composition, not infrequently adopt the term “laboratory method” in order to show their recognition of the effectiveness of the method worked out by the sciences.
Reaction against the Question and Answer Method
The second innovation in method of teaching, namely, supervised study, came as a reaction against the purely examination method of conducting class exercises which was formerly almost universal except in laboratory classes. The examination method is the familiar one of calling a pupil to his feet and then asking him one question after another to find out whether he has learned his lesson. If he answers well, he is marked with a high grade. If he answers badly, he is marked with a low grade, reprimanded, and told to do his work over.
The futility of some of this procedure is at once evident if one thinks of the student who has made an honest effort to learn his lesson, but has failed because he adopted an inefficient and often a wrong method of getting the lesson. In such a case the pupil fails because he does not know how to get his lesson. It therefore occurred to some progressive teachers that it was their duty to inquire not merely into the results of the student’s study but also into his methods of study. The moment this new idea is grasped, the function of a recitation will be seen to be something more than the examination of pupils. The recitation is now coming to be the place where pupils learn how to do intellectual work, how to attack intellectual problems, and how to guide their efforts into more economical and effective channels.