A brief course in the teaching process

by George D. Strayer

Aside from the fact that we are only beginning to have a profession of education, many other factors have entered to delay the progress in the direction of standardizing our work by means of accurate measurement of the results achieved. One of the most comforting of the fallacies which are at times urged against the attempt to measure results is found in the popular statement that the only criterion by which the success of school work can be measured is found in the ultimate success of the individuals who are subjected to the process. The most inefficient teacher in the most poorly equipped school, if his period of service has been long enough, will point to the success of a few of the boys who once attended that particular school, as proof of the adequacy of the work which is now being done. The failures are never brought to mind. The fallacious reasoning found in such an appeal is all too common in our educational discussion. To take a selected group of individuals, who have, because of native ability, and possibly because of favorable environment, achieved distinction; and to claim that this success is due to our system of education, may be satisfying to our pride, but cannot appeal to our good judgment. The only available measure of the success of the work done in any particular school is to be found in the changes which are brought about in boys and girls, young men and young women, during the period of their school life.

It has been argued, too, that that which is most worth while in education cannot be measured. Those who advance this argument speak continually in terms of “atmosphere,” “spirit,” and the like. There are two replies to be made to this contention. The one is that any power which the teacher has, whether it is called influence, or ability to teach arithmetic, must result in some change in the children who are taught. Another equally valid answer is to be found in the fact that the best teachers of arithmetic, of literature, of geography, of history, and the other studies are, at the same time, the teachers whose influence we value most in the school.

We have been hopeful that the sciences of biology, psychology, sociology, and economics would, in their development, solve the problems of education. No one would deny the significance of the work done in these fields as fundamental to the development of scientific work in education. No one is fully equipped to undertake investigation in the field of education without preliminary training in these fundamental sciences. Progress in the science of education has come, however, through the efforts of those men of sound fundamental training who have attacked the problems of education as such, rather than through the work of the biologist, psychologist, sociologist, or economist. If we should wait for the sciences mentioned to solve our problems, progress would indeed be slow.

Those who are unacquainted with modern statistical methods as applied in the social sciences have at times felt that it was impossible to measure large groups of individuals who differ in ability, in interest, and in environment. It is impossible within the limits of a brief chapter to make clear the validity of such measurement. It may be confidently asserted, however, that the measurement of a large group of individuals is, on the whole, more satisfactory than the attempt to measure a single individual. We can be more sure of the accuracy of our results in comparing two groups of children of a thousand each, than we could in the attempt to measure accurately a single individual with regard to ability in school subjects.

A most persistent objection to the measuring of results comes from those who feel that it is not fair to compare individuals or groups who are not alike in all particulars. They would claim, for example, that we cannot compare children in spelling ability when one group comes from homes in which the English language is spoken, while the other comes from the homes of those who speak a foreign language. It is probable that this objection is due to a belief that measurement will result in a comparison of the present situation without any regard to the growth or development which has characterized the group. If we derive units of measurement in spelling, manifestly the attempt would be to measure the changes which have been brought about in any group in terms of units which are comparable. If group one shows ability ten, having advanced during the year from ability seven, it will be considered just as satisfactory as the advance which has been made in group two, which has moved from ability eight to ability eleven. In other words, the purpose of measurement is never to attempt to make all alike. It is rather to discover differences and the reason for their existence; but most of all to give us some adequate means of determining progress or change.

Let us suppose again, in a matter of business administration, that one school shows a much higher per capita cost than another. This does not prove that one school is more efficiently managed than another. What it does do is to suggest that some adequate reason is to be found for the difference which exists. In like manner, one city may show a much higher cost for janitors’ salaries than does another. This may suggest investigation, but it does not prove that the city with the higher cost for janitors’ service is inefficiently managed or extravagant in its expenditures. It may be that the city that spends a relatively large amount for janitorial service actually gets more per dollar for the money which it spends than does the city with the smaller cost. It is always a purpose of measurement to discover discrepancies and to raise problems.

It has been contended that it is not important to derive scales or units of measurement on the ground that the scientific study of education is significant only in so far as it has to do with a careful investigation of the processes involved in growth. Those who make this contention seem to feel that a careful study of the way in which children come to form habits, to grow in power of reasoning, or in ability to appreciate, will give us the final answer concerning the methods to be employed in teaching. The difficulty with this point of view is that human beings, even though they be trained in investigation, are fallible. The only final test of the success of any method, however carefully derived, and however much of it may depend upon a knowledge of the processes involved in growth in the particular aspect of mental life which is involved, is to be found in the result achieved. Theoretically a method may seem to be perfect, and yet in terms of the results which are secured it may prove to be a failure. If the results are not accurately measured, if we do not derive scales of measurement, we can never be certain of our conclusions with regard to the method to be employed in bringing about any particular type of mental growth or development.

Possibly the one element in the situation which has operated to retard development in the direction of accurate measurement of results, more than any other, is the tendency in education to appeal to authority, and the corresponding lack of devotion to scientific investigation. It is, of course, much easier to solve the problems which one meets by taking the opinion of those who have had experience in the field. No one would deny the value of the judgment of our great educational leaders. The fact remains, however, that these same leaders would be the last ones to place their own opinion in opposition to the results obtained from a careful scientific investigation. Indeed, it is in no small measure due to the insistence of these leaders that we are coming to have adequate investigations with regard to our educational practice.

It has seemed necessary to discuss at some length the objections which have been made against the attempt to measure results in education, rather than to devote more space to a discussion of the work which has already been done. All students of education are familiar with the early work of Rice, and with the later contributions of Thorndike, Ayres, Cornman, and many others who have contributed to the literature of educational investigation. Possibly the most significant piece of work that has been done is Thorndike’s scale for measuring handwriting.[32] We may reasonably hope to have scales derived for the measurement of abilities in other subjects.

In administration, considerable work has already been done with reference to the cost of education, both as regards the relationship of expenditure for education to other expenditures, the question of a proper distribution of money within the educational budget, and of the proper distribution of state school funds.[33] We can, of course, hope for much more significant work in this field as more adequate systems of accounting are introduced and more satisfactory reports are issued. It is noteworthy that in those school systems in which an attempt has been made to check up expenditures carefully, remarkable savings have been made. We have not yet reached the limit of possible reduction of expenditure without the sacrifice of our present efficiency. Much work has been done on problems of school organization, yet the problems of retardation and elimination will be satisfactorily treated only as we secure more accurate records concerning attendance, scholarship, health, promotions, and demotions, such as are provided for by the genetic records now kept in some of our more progressive school systems. The problems of departmental work and individual instruction can never be satisfactorily solved until we measure accurately the results secured under different systems of organization.