“From a consideration of the means of instruction and manner of teaching thereby conditioned, which necessarily coincide with the striving of man toward development, what is necessary for the knowledge of number, of space, of form, of exercises in speech, of writing and of reading comes out clearly and definitely.”—E., p. 229.
The view that “the material of instruction and the manner of teaching” are necessarily conditioned by the child’s stage of development is a view that has rapidly gained ground. Froebel did his best to apply it, and it had a partial application in the “culture epochs” theory of the Herbartians. It has received a stronger impetus into what seems at present a much truer direction, from the experimental work carried out at Chicago, under the auspices of Professor Dewey. Froebel maintained that it was a condition of satisfactory work in every subject. For example, in connection with the teaching of writing he says:
“Here, as in all instruction, we should start from a definite need of the boy, a need, which must, to a certain extent, have been previously developed, if he is to be taught with profit and success. This is the source of a multitude of imperfections in our schools, that we teach without having awakened any need for it, nay even after having repressed what need was already there! How can instruction and the school prosper?”—E., p. 223.
Froebel speaks in the same way of work in colours, saying “children feel the need of a knowledge of colours.” Of poetry in general, including religious verses and prayers, he says “these must be given according to the requirements of the development of the child’s mind, and must give expression to what is already there.”
Returning now to the subject of play as such, we find that Groos retains as “general psychological criteria of play,” but two “of the elements popularly regarded as essential—namely, its pleasurableness, and the actual severance from life’s serious aims.” Of these he says: “Both are included in activity performed for its own sake.”
It is in connection with very young children that Froebel speaks of activity for its own sake, and here he does not differentiate between work and play. He is true to his theory that in all things capable of development, “what is definite proceeds everywhere from what is indefinite.” So he says that:
“Play is at first just natural life.”—E., p. 54.
He maintains that:
“The activity of the senses and limbs is the first germ or bud, and play, building and shaping (Gestalten) the first tender blossoms of the formative instinct, and that this is the point of time, at which man is to be prepared for future industry, diligence, and productive activity.”—E., p. 34.