A brief course in the teaching process

by George D. Strayer

In the making of the course of study, the teacher should welcome any opportunity to contribute her knowledge concerning the availability of material or the methods to be used in her grade. Any good course of study should be the joint product of at least three classes of people: the expert in the subject, the expert in supervision and administration of schools, and the expert teacher. The subject matter expert is needed to pass upon the material from the standpoint of fact and from the point of view of one who sees the beginnings of a subject in relation to the whole field. The supervisor has to provide for the proper relation of the different subjects, determines the amount of time to be devoted to the subject, and the general method of procedure in teaching the subject. The teacher needs to advise as to the practicability of the whole scheme. She has in mind a particular group of children with certain experiences, interests, and abilities, and her judgment is probably safer than either of the others as to the availability of any particular topic or phase of the subject. In addition to this service, any group of teachers can give most significant help with respect to the methods which have proved most helpful. Indeed, our courses of study could be made much more helpful if teachers were only asked to give suggestions concerning the organization of material and methods of teaching, which they are so well equipped to offer by reason of their experience in teaching the subject to children. Happily, the practice of inviting the coöperation of teachers in making the course of study is becoming more common in our cities. Any capable teacher who is anxious to participate in the organization of the curriculum will find opportunity to make her contribution.

Possibly there are teachers who, because of the very excellence of the courses of study provided, feel that all that is required for them is to follow blindly the directions given. Instead of considering the course of study as a hard taskmaster, they look upon it as a crutch upon which they lean heavily. For these teachers there is little need for preparation. The course of study and the textbooks have solved the problems of teaching. Let us inquire just what the curriculum of our schools stands for before attempting to decide just what relation the teacher bears to it.

A course of study is not so much knowledge to be poured in. Rather it represents possible experiences for which children may have need, experiences which will aid them in the solution of their problems and make possible for them the realization of their purposes. How did all of this knowledge come to be preserved, and how did it happen to be arranged in groups labeled by certain names? Men have preserved from time to time, by handing down by word of mouth or by records made on stone, wood, skin, paper, or other surfaces, knowledge which they have found useful in meeting the problems which confront them. For convenience of reference this knowledge has come to be grouped, and to each group a name has been applied. If we could only remember how we came to have this body of knowledge, how it happened to be thought worth while to preserve the experiences which when grouped together we know as subjects, it might make us a little more judicious in our attempt to acquaint children with their inheritance.

Our schools have all too frequently acted upon the principle that children could assimilate the school subjects without reference to their past experience or their present needs. It has been common to say, teach so much of this or that subject, just as if the child mind was a receptacle to be filled. The difficulty of this attitude toward school subjects is twofold: first, the children fail to gain any appreciation of the experiences involved; and, second, they fail to gain from the process the power of independent thought, or the spirit of investigation which it is the purpose of education to impart.

The doctrine of formal discipline, as commonly interpreted, has been largely responsible for our wrong idea of the meaning of subjects of study. The idea that any study, especially if it proved disagreeable to the pupil, and had no definite relationship either to his past experiences or present needs, would mean most for his education, has not yet entirely disappeared. Aside from the psychological fallacy involved, that ability to do one kind of work would spread or be available for all other kinds of mental activity which we call by the same general name, the devotees of the doctrine ignored the fact that the maximum of activity or hard mental work could be secured only under the stimulus of genuine interest.[30]

Possibly the introduction of the industrial arts[31] and the more rational approach which they demand, may serve to illustrate the method to be used in teaching other subjects. In cooking, for example, we would hardly expect to have a child begin by engaging in an exercise in beating eggs without reference to any problem which required this activity. If children are to learn something of wood and its use in our industries, we commonly expect them to gain some knowledge of the processes involved in the course of the construction of furniture for the playhouse, a flower box for the window, a sled, a checkerboard, or some other interesting project. It is true that the industrial arts lend themselves more readily to the dominant interests of children to do and to make than do most school subjects. If these activities, which are essentially the activities characteristic of our modern civilization, be used to best advantage, they will offer many opportunities for making significant the other subjects.

Any considerable participation in the processes which are fundamental to the great industries cannot fail to arouse an interest in the source of materials, the development of the industry, and a desire to express one’s self with reference to the work which is being done. From the interest in the source of materials grows naturally the work in nature study and geography. The development of the industry takes us back even to the time of primitive man, and history becomes significant. The handling of materials in construction suggests the need of measurement, and arithmetic is provided for. In all of this work there will be a demand for communication, the necessity to learn what others have recorded in books, and the wish to express one’s own experience in oral and written speech. The experiences of people like ourselves, as idealized in literature, will make its appeal in spite of the worst our teaching can do. It is not maintained that all subject matter groups itself naturally around industrial activities, and that these activities should, therefore, form the center of the curriculum; rather, it is sought to emphasize the relationships to the real needs of children and the possibility of utilizing these genuine motives in the teaching of school subjects.

We teach the subjects of the curriculum in order that children may understand their environment, be adjusted to it, and, as President Butler puts it, come into possession of their spiritual inheritance. Out of the work which is done, these same children should gain power to adapt themselves to new conditions and should be equipped to render service in the progress which is yet to be made in our society. Now one’s adjustment to the present environment must be an adjustment to his environment, a solution of his problems as they at present exist. Future adaptability is conditioned by the experience which one has had in making such adjustments. The ability to contribute to the progress in which each should participate is dependent, not so much upon the number of facts one possesses, as upon the attitude of investigation which characterizes him, the respect for truth, and ability to think straight which have been developed by his education. From whatever point of view we approach the problem of teaching our subjects, the answer is the same: meet present situations, solve present real, vital problems, make subject matter meet the needs of the children you are teaching. This analysis of the curriculum makes apparent the important part to be played by the teacher in making available the experiences which the school subjects are organized to present.

The courses of study may present much that is helpful in the organization of material, the suggestions for teaching may be gathered from the experience of many teachers, and still the great problem of making these subjects vital to children remains as the work of every teacher. Motives which grow out of the experience which children have already had must be sought. The material to be presented will be significant in the experience of these children only when they approach it in order to satisfy their real needs. Aside from the possibility of finding in one of the subjects, as, for example, the industrial arts, a motive for other work, the school situation itself presents many opportunities for discovering real needs to children.