Saint Louis, Nov. 29, 1909.
EditorHistory 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 ofthe 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.
EditorHistory 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.
Our library has been created practically within the last six years. Prior to that time it consisted of a few hundred volumes, indifferently selected and poorly adapted to class-room needs. From the beginning of its reorganization every instructor who has had anything to do with the ordering of books has sought first to purchase duplicate copies of those books which his classes will use in their class work from day to day. The aim has been to make it possible for every member of the class to read the same references, hence duplicates ranging from three to twenty have been purchased. The general plan has been to have one copy for about every three members in the class. As a result we have numerous duplicates of those titles that are used as references for general class work. Of course these books will wear out pretty rapidly—some are already well worn out—and in a short time they will all have to be replaced. But this will give us an opportunity to put other books that have been more recently written in their place, and thus keep abreast of the times.
But all our purchases have not been made in this manner. We have been ordering many other books in single copies which are used chiefly for theme or thesis work, though there are occasions when an entire class will be sent to several different books for a given subject.
So successful has this plan of buying duplicate copies in large numbers been, that we are constantly advising those who consult us to do the same thing. Just the other day a High School teacher wrote me she had $35 to spend for library books on Ancient History for a class of 70. I immediately wrote her, recommending that she put practically all of that precious $35 in just two titles, Tucker’s “Life of the Ancient Greeks” and Johnstone’s “Private Life of the Romans.” I estimated that she could get about ten copies of each of these titles, and perhaps have enough left to buy Oman’s or Bury’s “History of Greece,” and How and Leigh’s or Pelham’s “History of Rome.” I am sure that the results she will get from this scheme will be far more satisfactory than they would be if she spent all of her money for single copies of a great many more titles.
There may be objections to giving the same assignment of reading to the entire class, but I have found in my own work here that the students in the history courses of high school rank and those also of college rank do better work and get better results if they are, most of the time, given identically the same assignments of reading. I believe most firmly in the definite assignment of pages in a book for the day-after-day work. The student may be left to his own devices in some instances, but not in many. And the only way to make this plan work is to buy numerous duplicate titles of at least a few books, and to keep this up until all the books for general class work have been purchased. When that is done, then attention can be given to stocking up the library with those books that will be needed in single copies only.
If there is anything fundamentally wrong with this method of doing things I should like to have it pointed out. So far it has been the way of salvation to us here and to many others around us.
E. M. Violette.
Department of History,State Normal School,Kirksville, Mo.
We have recently placed in our history and other classes a series of Underwood and Underwood stereographs. Will you kindly publish inThe History Teacher’s Magazinesome suggestions as to how they may be used with profit? Among others we have placed one of the complete Italian tours. We shall have about 60 in Roman history next semester. Any suggestions you may see fit to publish will be highly appreciated.
I cannot stop without telling you how much I enjoy theMagazine. It grows better each month. The suggestions are very helpful. I have worked a number of them out, and find them exceedingly practical. It is always with considerable pleasure that I look forward to the delivery of theMagazine. It is a timely publication, and will do much for the history teaching throughout the nation.
C. R. G.
Have our readers any suggestions to offer for such work?
The Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association held its annual meeting at Stanford University, November 19-20. The afternoon session of Saturday, the 20th, was devoted to History in the Secondary Schools, the topic being “Ancient History in the First Year of the High School.” A very practical paper was read by W. C. Westergaard, of the Alameda High School, on the subject, “Points of Contact between Ancient History and the Present.”
The discussion that followed brought out several points. Ancient History has been the object of attack by several critics of the high schools, and if it is to retain its place it must justify itself. It is the weak point in our secondary history work, chiefly for two reasons: 1. It is the most remote of the four “fields,” and yet is put before beginners, whose mental power is undeveloped. 2. It is usually placed in charge of less experienced teachers than are the other courses. The method set forth in the essay is well calculated to overcome the first of these conditions. Children enjoy discussing historical “problems” of a simple sort: e. g., the conduct of the Romans after Caudine Forks; the wisdom of Cæsar’s clemency. Anything that will make the men of the past real is useful; value of letters (Pliny’s, etc.).
After the discussion was closed, the election of officers resulted in the choice of Professor E. D. Adams, Stanford University, president; Prof. J. N. Bowman, University of California, secretary-treasurer.
H. W. E.