Editor History Teacher’s Magazine:
Kindly permit me to write a word in regard to Professor Fay’s criticism of Professor Fling’s article in the September number of your excellent magazine.
Professor Fling some years ago blazed the trail for a reform in history instruction throughout the country. Like every pedagogical reformer, he advanced a theory which many—perhaps, only few—were willing to carry out in its entirety. But what man who is a reformer does have his whole scheme adopted? Professor Fling did certainly arouse history teachers from their lethargy and from the “one-book” method of teaching; at least, he contributed in no small part to this result.
I can find nothing in Professor Fling’s article at variance with modern educational thought. It does not argue, I take it, that we shall make trained historical scholars out of our high school pupils; but it does argue—and rightly so, it seems to me—that we give them a glimpse of the material out of which history is written. What better way to get them to practice the critical attitude towards the printed page? Professor Fay says that the sources should not be in the hands of the pupils, “being unsuited to their mental capacity.” I have used them with first year and with fourth year pupils, and in all periods of history. The use of them requires more work by the teacher. They should generally be accompanied by questions or topics; or they can profitably be made a source of class study. What an excellent opportunity of teaching the pupils how to study,—a thing in which but few high school students are entirely proficient.
I will admit that I am not prepared to go the extent that Professor Fling advocates, and apply “internal” and “external” criticism to references twice a week. But because we cannot endorse his method entirely, should we reject it entirely? There are many ideas which he advances in the “Salamis” study which can easily be followed in many other periods. The use of sources will be very imperfectly handled in the hands of an unskilled teacher, but that is no criticism on the use of them. What better reference for 1789 in France than the source, Arthur Young’s “Travels.” In using such an attractive work, must we not raise the very questions which Professor Fling suggests in the “Salamis” study? A study of one page of the expense account of the South Carolina Legislature during reconstruction days will mean more than a whole chapter of secondary authority on reconstruction expenses. By the way, could civics be taught without the sources? History instruction is to furnish information; but it is also to develop discriminating judgment. In the use of the sources—to what extent, will depend on the teacher,—these results will be attained, and the subject vitalized, more than in any other way.
The fact that we cannot afford two recitations a week when only four are given to history is no argument against the method. Professor Fling’s statements as to allotment of time were made with reference to five hours a week for history. And, anyway, it is immaterial whether we can follow Professor Fling’s method according to the letter; we certainly, in our high school instruction, need to follow the spirit of his method. In fact, from one paragraph of Professor Fay’s article, where he says he would arouse the pupils’ interest “in scenes and countries removed by time and space from themselves,” it would seem that he would use the source. The difference is one of degree, not of kind; one of how to use them, not whether to use them or no.
H. R. Tucker,
Wm. McKinley H. S., St. Louis.
SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
Editor History Teacher’s Magazine:
The question raised by Mr. Parham, Librarian of the Little Rock High School in the November number, concerning the supply of reference books in history, is a very vital one. I should like to make one or two remarks by way of relating some things concerning the making of the library in the State Normal School with which I am connected.