The fundamental idea in the organization and conduct of the history recitation should be that of building a little more on foundations already laid, of adding new knowledge and ideas of historical importance to those already a part of the pupils’ background, and of preparing the minds of the pupils for further additions in the near future. The most discouraging thing that a history teacher has to face is the seemingly evanescent character of the pupils’ background. It slips away and there is nothing to build on or add to, and so the relation of events to each other and the growth of important movements are not understood or appreciated. This discouraging aspect of history teaching can only be remedied by careful attention to the background of the day’s lesson, and therefore the first ten or fifteen minutes of the period should be devoted to a general discussion or recitation on the lesson or lessons previously studied that are most closely connected with the new lesson of the day. Then should follow a careful study of the new lesson itself, occupying the main part of the period. Towards the close, however, five or ten minutes should be allowed for the assignment of the work for the next meeting of the class. Thus the general organization of the recitation will consist of: (a) The recitation or review on the previous lesson or lessons; (b) the study of the new lesson; and (c) the assignment for next day’s work.
(a) The Recitation on the Previous Lesson.
In the main, this should be done by the pupils rather than by the teacher, as a more lasting impression is made on their minds by leading them to recall and associate past events and movements with what they are then studying. The points in the previous work that should be especially emphasized are those of general importance and significance in historical development rather than the minor details and incidents. The recitation can thus be made to serve as a summary of previous ones, and particularly of the one just before. The teacher must be careful not to give too much of the period to such a review, however, unless a special general review has been planned for. There is always the temptation to prolong the review beyond proper limits. It should be rigidly confined to subject matter that has importance as a background for the new lesson of the day. If the previous lesson does not stand in close connection with the new lesson little or no time should be spent in reviewing it, but attention should be given to other more closely-related events that have been studied. The utility of this part of the recitation in giving background for the new lesson is easily seen. If the lesson is a part of a series of recitations on the same general topic, then one introductory review will serve for the series, and each separate lesson can be reviewed in connection with the succeeding one. A broad and comprehensive attitude in reviewing is always desirable, and no opportunity to establish ideas of continuity with past and future should be neglected by the teacher.
(b) The Study of the New Lesson.
If the opening part of the recitation has been properly done, the transition to the new lesson will be an easy and natural one, and the connection with the past will be well established. The teacher now has the opportunity to test the pupils’ understanding of the new topic and to draw them out in discussion concerning the information in the text-book, source book, and collateral reading assigned for the day. The teacher’s questions should be carefully thought out, and should call for answers in which the information is given in connection with its historical importance and significance rather than as mere facts that have been memorized for recitation. All direct questions, calling for a “yes” or “no” answer should be avoided, for with such a question before him the student has an equal chance to be right as well as to be wrong. Almost equally bad are questions that call merely for a name or a date. Instead of asking: “Was Rome able to defend herself from the Visigoths?” time will be saved by asking: “Why did Rome find it difficult to meet the Visigothic attack,” and, instead of asking “Who was the leader of the Visigoths?”—a fact which every pupil should know—a better question would be: “What caused the Visigoths to invade Italy?” While it is important that the teacher’s questions should be clear, yet it is not a bad thing pedagogically to ask a question that requires some thought on the part of the pupil before it is answered. Pupils frequently say: “I don’t understand your question,” and sometimes this answer is justified, more frequently, however, it is the pupil’s own inattention, and the majority of the class will understand the question and be able to answer it correctly. The harder questions a teacher asks in the way of calling for thoughtful interpretation the better training students are getting.
In the matter of the relative contribution of teacher and class to the discussion, it may be said that a teacher who talks too little is as bad as a teacher who talks too much. As a general rule the college graduate teaching history who is well informed in his subject matter tends to talk too much in the class room, and his study of the new lesson is more of a lecture than a recitation. As an observer of such a teacher remarked, “The young man made a very good recitation himself, while the class listened.” On the other hand, the teacher who has less background of historical knowledge is inclined to make the class do all the work while he or she acts as inquisitor and perpetual question mark. Nothing is contributed in the way of information or interpretation save what the pupils have acquired from the text-book, and the result is an unscholarly and rather barren drill. The true history teacher will mingle knowledge with method, and will add to and amplify the subject matter by taking part sympathetically in the recitation, without, however, monopolizing the discussion. In calling on members of the class to take part in the discussion, attention should be given to those who need it most, rather than to the bright and well-informed pupils. The dull or inattentive pupil, who is whispering to his neighbor or not paying proper attention, needs more real teaching than the bright boy or girl. The interest of all members of the class should be aroused, and voluntary questions, discussions and debates encouraged rather than discouraged. If the pupils are inattentive and uninterested, it is certainly a criticism of the teacher and of his or her power of exposition and interrogation.
Much of the success of the recitation on the new lesson will depend on the way the subject matter is handled. Some leading idea or problem should form the center of the discussion, which should take the form of saving or explaining the question in an historically true manner by bringing out the main points of development. In the course of such a discussion the application of the topic to present conditions and its relation to the past should be kept in mind and questions asked from both viewpoints. This applies particularly to topics in medieval and modern, English and American history fields which are, on the whole, more closely connected with modern civilization than the field of ancient history can possibly be. If the problem studied is practically completed in the lesson for the day, and a new topic to be taken up next time, then a summary should be made at the end of this part of the recitation. If, however, the same line of historical development is to be studied next day, such a summary will form part of the next recitation. Thus the question of a summary at the close of the recitation on the new lesson depends on the nature of the next lesson to be studied.
(c) The Assignment of the Next Day’s Work.
The assignment of the work of the class for its next meeting should be very carefully and systematically attended to by the teacher. This assignment is best made at the close of the period because it concerns the review of the lesson just studied, as well as the new lesson. It should be taken down in note books by the pupils so that they will know definitely what is expected of them when they next meet. As far as practicable the teacher should put the assignment for the preliminary recitation on the previous lesson or lessons in the form of problem questions calling for causes and results that explain historical phenomena. Problem questions can also be given in connection with the assignment on the new lesson, though here a topical assignment is not so much out of place if the topic is well selected so as to suggest the main problem. Questions of detail in an assignment are out of place, and, of course, an assignment of so many pages, irrespective of problems or topics, is absurd. If collateral reading is assigned in source books or secondary works, it should be done understandingly and carefully, and only in such amounts as can be effectively used by the teacher and class to supplement the text-book. A question on the collateral reading will also be desirable.
In following out such a plan of organizing the recitation as has been just described, the teacher should, for some time at least, plan out the recitation period and its various phases in advance.