A brief course in the teaching process

by George D. Strayer

There is very great danger, if definitions or generalizations are given ready-made to children, that they will learn to juggle with words. The parrot-like repetition of rules of syntax, or principles of arithmetic, never indicates real grasp of these subjects. Children think most when the requirement for thinking is greatest, and none are readier than they to take advantage of laxness on the part of the teacher in this respect. It is not only when the formal statement of principles or definitions is called for that the teacher needs to be on her guard. At any stage of the process, if the teacher will only take their words and read meaning into them, some children will be found ready to substitute words for thought. It is really a mistake to tell a child that you know what he means even though he did not say it. Language is the instrument which he employs in thinking, and, if his statement lacked clearness or definiteness, the chances are very great that his thinking has failed in these same particulars. Instead of encouraging children in loose thinking by accepting any statement offered, it would be much better to raise the question of the real significance of the statement, to inquire just what was meant by the words used. Such procedure will help to make children more careful in expressing themselves, and will inevitably tend to clearer thinking.

Application: Whatever conclusions we have reached, whatever truths we have satisfactorily established, influence us in our later thought and action. But even though this is true, there is a decided advantage in providing for a definite application of the results of the thinking which children have done as soon as possible and in as many different ways as is feasible. In the first place, such application makes clearer the truth itself, and helps to fix it in mind. Again, the conclusion arrived at to-day is chiefly significant as a basis for our thinking of to-morrow, and it is as we apply our conclusions that new problems arise to stimulate us to further thought. Then, too, the satisfaction which comes when one feels his power over situations as a result of thinking is the very best possible stimulus to further intellectual activity. Finally, we need to show children the application of that which they have learned to the life which they live outside of the school. We are not apt to err on the side of too frequent or too varied application of the generalizations we have led children to make. Rather we shall have to study diligently to provide enough applications to fix for the child the habit of verification by an appeal to experience.

A few words by way of caution concerning the inductive lesson may not be out of place.

First: Not all school work can be undertaken on this general plan. There are times when the end to be accomplished is distinctly not the discovery of some new truth, but rather the fixing of some habit. There are exercises which are distinctively deductive, some which aim to produce habits, and others which seek to secure appreciation. But more of this is in the succeeding chapters.

Second: Even when we seek to establish truth, we cannot always develop it by an appeal to the experience of children nor to observations which they can make. We shall have, on some occasions, to supply the data, and in still other cases it will be most economical to demonstrate the truth of the position which we desire to have them take. There are occasions when the solution of the problem is not possible for children. In this last instance we shall have to provide the authoritative statement. Indeed, it may be argued that one of the lessons which we all need to learn is respect for the expert. We cannot settle all of the problems which arise, but we may choose from among those who profess to have found a solution. Our education ought to help us to avoid the quack and the charlatan. The habit of logical thinking on the part of children, and expert knowledge in some field, however small, is the only protection which the school can give against the pretensions of those who represent themselves as the dispensers of truth.[9]

Third: There is a grave danger that we may help children too much. Some teachers interpret the inductive development lesson to mean that each step in the thinking required must be carefully prepared for and quickly passed. They consider that they have taught the best lesson when there has been no hitch in the progress from the statement of aim to the wording of the generalization. The suggestive question which makes thinking on the part of children unnecessary is a favorite measure employed. If we stop to consider what thinking means, we cannot fail to see the fallacy of such work. We all do our best thinking, not when the problem to be solved is explained by some one else and all of the difficulties removed, but rather when we find the problem most difficult of solution.

If children are at work on problems which are vital to them, we may expect them to continue to work even though they make mistakes. Indeed, the best recitation may be the one that leaves the children not with a solution skillfully supplied for them by the teacher, but rather with a keen realization of the problem, and with a somewhat clearer idea of the direction in which the solution may be sought. It is the teacher’s work to help the child to see the problem, and, seeing the problem herself from the child’s point of view, to stimulate the child to his best effort. The teacher must know not only the pupil’s attitude of mind toward the problem and how his mind is most likely to react, but also the mental activity required to master properly the issue that has been raised. On the one hand, the teacher’s equipment consists of a knowledge of the minds of the children whom she teaches, and on the other a knowledge of the subject to be taught, not simply as a body of knowledge more or less classified or organized, but as a mode of mental growth.[10] What the teacher needs is a clear realization of the difficulties which the pupils must meet, and the way in which childish minds may best overcome these obstacles. When such sympathy exists between teacher and pupil, we may expect that pupils will constantly grow stronger in their ability to think logically, instead of becoming more and more dependent upon the teacher. And this is our great work as teachers, to render our services unnecessary.

Fourth: No teacher should attempt to outline her work on the basis of the steps indicated in the discussion of the inductive method without a clear realization of the fact that these steps cannot be sharply differentiated, that they are not mutually exclusive. To define a problem adequately may mean that we have passed through the whole process. At any step in the process after the problem is defined, and some hypothesis formed, we may wish to verify our guess by an appeal to known facts, and often we shall find it necessary to abandon the hypothesis already formed and provide another as a basis for further thinking. It is true that the natural movement of the mind is roughly indicated by the steps named; but it must be remembered that no mind can possibly arrive at the solution of a real problem by adhering to a fixed order of procedure. We do not by our teaching create the power of logical thought; we rather guide a mind that naturally operates logically. We can never teach children to reason, but we can provide the occasion for logical thinking, and can guard against the common fallacies. Our success will depend upon a clear realization of the possibilities of the child mind and of the subjects we teach as part of their growth and development.

Teaching by Types: Teaching by means of types is sometimes discussed as a separate method, while in reality it is simply one form of the inductive process. As was indicated in our discussion of observation above, there are times when the consideration of a single situation or object in detail may be worth more than a thousand careless observations. It is especially true that a thoroughly adequate knowledge of one object or case of a class prepares in the best possible way for future observations of members of the same class. Familiarity with the life history of one animal or plant will help us greatly to understand other animals and plants, because that which is most essential in all has been carefully observed in the case considered. Now let us suppose that several plants and animals have been studied. If the cases which are considered are truly typical, it may be possible for the student to appreciate not simply the individuals belonging to the classes studied, but also something of the interrelation of the several classes. This illustration, given because it represents in a general way something of the method followed in the study of science, represents a very common method of procedure in the ordinary affairs of life. None of us can hope to support our conclusions by a careful scrutiny of all possible cases. We take something on authority; namely, that the individual case considered is representative of a large group, then after we have investigated the one case we apply our conclusions to the whole group. Of course there is one great danger. We may be overhasty in our generalizations. No fallacy is more common than the emphasis placed upon non-essentials by those whose observations have been limited. The stories of the traveler who generalizes, after seeing one red-headed child or after eating at one hotel, concerning the children and hotels of the country visited, are too common to need repetition here. Where observations are necessarily limited, the important consideration is to get cases that seem as different as possible in order that that which is essential may be differentiated from the non-essential or accidental.