A student's history of education

by Frank Pierrepont Graves

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.