Correlated courses in woodwork and mechanical drawing

by Ira Samuel Griffith

In order to develop in the highest degree independence of thought and power of initiative the pupil must be given opportunities for determining ends and working out means. Only in this way is the natural cycle of mental activities—thinking, feeling and doing—fully realized and made effective. The practical realization of this principle means, of course, a distinct problem of instruction. The problem is essentially one of proportion and balance between freedom of expression on the one side and skill and mastery of process on the other. Extreme emphasis on the one leads inevitably to a class of crude and ill-considered products while attention restricted to the other results in mere drill and formalism.

Further, in “The Manual Training Teacher,” Charles L. Binns, an Englishman just returned from a trip thru the United States, writes of manual training in the grades as follows:

The lack of exactness is the main defect of American manual training. But there are many compensations to be balanced against this, and these arise chiefly, in my opinion, from the fact that the teacher is allowed more liberty to follow his own judgment in teaching the subject than is the case here. He has more scope for exercising his initiative, with the result that he retains the freshness of interest and enthusiasm for his work that our own stereotyped and restricted schemes do much to quell. There is a fine spirit of free activity, eager interest, and industry permeating most of the manual training classrooms. Even the inferior work is done with a happy glow of achievement that half excuses it. * * * To emphasize unduly the aim of rigid mechanical accuracy generally means a sacrifice of the thought side of the work. Those qualities which lead eventually to the realization of the pupil’s highest powers—such qualities as intelligent self direction; an alert resourceful attitude of mind; and power to plan means to an end—are too valuable to lose for such an aim. * * * At the same time a system of handwork that ignores a reasonable standard of accuracy does not count for much. In the course of my visits I found more than once not only an almost entire disregard for exactness in the work of the boys, but also an almost entire neglect on the teacher’s part to strive for it. Something may be said for a method which grants the pupils liberty to express themselves freely in their work, if the results are critically examined and the errors pointed out, but to accept and pass complacently work manifestly inferior is quite inexcusable. There is an element of haste about some of the work which may account for some of this.

More recently Dr. Georg Kerschensteiner the eminent German authority of Munich while on a tour of the United States is quoted by the “Manual Training Magazine” as criticising our manual training strongly, saying:

He could not see why children are encouraged to make big pieces of furniture before they can square up a piece of wood properly or make a single joint of the type that must be multiplied many times in the piece of furniture, if it is properly constructed. From this statement it must not be concluded that his pedagogy is of the dried out kind. On the contrary he stated with marked emphasis that the first requisite in training for skill is to cultivate joy in work. “It is in that way that we appeal to the heart,” and “it is only when the feelings are brought into action that we can most truly educate.”

We may conclude from this brief statement of the situation that it is desirable to organize and have courses in our manual training and mechanical drawing and that whatever system is adopted it must make allowance for emphasis upon both the thought element and upon skill.

What System Shall We Use.

It is pretty generally conceded that manual training as exemplified by the Russian system of joint making and the Swedish system of model making fails to lead forth the powers of the child to the fullest extent. The educational theory, now generally accepted, that interest is the indispensable basis of every method of education is sufficient to condemn the Russian system so far as its application in non-technical schools is concerned, while Swedish Sloyd, unmodified, is weak in that it fails to take into account the reflective phase of interest, namely, the power of self-initiative. Extreme “educational manual training’s” greatest weakness lies in its undue emphasis upon the thought element resulting in too great sacrifice of that other equally important element, skill or accuracy. The manual training movement is to be congratulated in that all signs now seem to point to its speedy delivery from the hands of these latter extremists. Is it too much to hope that out of our past experiences with the joint making Russian system with its admitted disciplinary value, the Swedish model making with its effort to utilize the energy of the worker toward useful products, and the self expression of the pedagogical movement with its attendant elements of interest and initiative there may come a manual training practice that shall be marked by a combination of the best of these elements with a consequent elimination of the weaknesses of each?

The outline of study suggested in the Illinois State Course of Study, credit for which is due mainly to Professor Charles A. Bennett, the chairman of the committee on manual training in woodwork, has proven a source of very great help to the writer in his efforts to properly present the subject matter of woodwork to his pupils. The introduction to this course is well worth repeating and is in substance as follows:

Any course in woodworking worthy of a place in the eighth and ninth grades of public school work should meet the following requirements: