DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Phanny, v. 3, issue 2, June 1944

Transcribe
Translate

Phanny, v. 3, issue 2, June 1944

Page 4

4     PHANNY     4

to prevent thinking in our schools, can not be accepted without qualification. There is, of course, room for a vast amount of improvement in this respect, especially in the grades from one to six, inclusive. In these grades, the teacher is charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that their pupils master at least the rudiments of such tool subjects as reading and arithmetic. The time is limited and the amount of material to be mastered is great; not great for the superior pupil, but very great indeed for the sub-normal would-be learner. What little time the teacher has for individual instruction must be utilized in the effort to make the laggards keep up with the rest of the class. Very rarely indeed does the teacher in these grades have any knowledge of or interest in what is known as "the scientific method" of approach to a problem, in which respect said teacher is on a par with some 90 to 95 % of our population, I should guess. The best such teachers can do is to assign special reports and similar tasks to their brightest pupils, and the easier, more routine material to the poorer ones. There is room for great improvement here.

In the junior and senior high schools, the individual is likely to receive more attention--at least, that is true of the schools with which I am familiar. I recall with considerable pleasure, three or four teachers in Lincoln (Nebraska) High School, who were remarkably successful in making their instruction fit the needs of the individuals in their classes. There were six or eight others who did well at this, too; and that was in the early twenties--1919 to 1922, to be exact. Separation of pupils according to ability was beginning to be the rule, rather than the exception, although it was all very unofficial.

In college, there are two widely divergent attitudes toward the purpose of college study; yet, in the long run, they both attain much the same ends, if the teachers and the pupils really work at their jobs. One school of thought holds that the essential function of college training is to teach the pupil "the art of living." The other view is that the chief function of the college is to teach the students how to earn a living, and how to contribute directly to human welfare while doing so. In either case, the necessity of thought is obvious. The student of the Humanities and of the great philosophies has learned nothing if he cannot apply his studies to life as it is lived today. The chemist or engineer who merely carries out routine activities learned in school has no more to offer than has the tradesman who learned his job at the side of a skilled craftsman; and he is probably less trained in how to live than the craftsman's apprentice.

Methods of teaching in college vary far more than they do in lower schools of course. At one end of the scale, we have the lecture room with 200 impersonal faces to whom the lecturer talks. If he is capable, he accomplishes much, but far less than he would in a smaller, more intimate group. The theory behind such instruction is that, by the time a pupil reaches college, he should know what he wants, and know enough to take advantage of all thatis offered. The burden is upon the pupil, not the teacher, who is required only to know his subject well, and to present it intelligibly. At the other extreme informal session invoving only a few individuals, with the instructor merely a guide in the discussions.

Between these two extremes is the small class--twenty or so pupils--working with, not under an intellignet, interesting teacher. At their best, such classes became very much like informal bull-sessions. The instructor does little but ask penetrating questions, or throw out ideas for the students to chow on. The business of answering such questions; questions of such a type, and presented in such a fashion that the intelligent pupil wants to answer them; becomes a splendid forward step on the road to learning how to think. I had an instructor in educational methods who taught that way, and the classes were both profitable and enjoyable. And the young woman who taught my summer school classes in
(Continued on page 13)

Saving...

4 PHANNY 4 to prevent thinking in our schools, can not be accepted without qualification. There is, of course, room for a vast amount of improvement in this respect, especially in the grades from one to six, inclusive. In these grades, the teacher is charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that their pupils master at least the rudiments of such tool subjects as reading and arithmetic. The time is limited and the amount of material to be mastered is great; not great for the superior pupil, but very great indeed for the sub-normal would-be learner. What little time the teacher has for individual instruction must be utilized in the effort to make the laggards keep up with the rest of the class. Very rarely indeed does the teacher in these grades have any knowledge of or interest in what is known as "the scientific method" of approach to a problem, in which respect said teacher is on a par with some 90 to 95 % of our population, I should guess. The best such teachers can do is to assign special reports and similar tasks to their brightest pupils, and the easier, more routine material to the poorer ones. There is room for great improvement here. In the junior and senior high schools, the individual is likely to receive more attention--at least, that is true of the schools with which I am familiar. I recall with considerable pleasure, three or four teachers in Lincoln (Nebraska) High School, who were remarkably successful in making their instruction fit the needs of the individuals in their classes. There were six or eight others who did well at this, too; and that was in the early twenties--1919 to 1922, to be exact. Separation of pupils according to ability was beginning to be the rule, rather than the exception, although it was all very unofficial. In college, there are two widely divergent attitudes toward the purpose of college study; yet, in the long run, they both attain much the same ends, if the teachers and the pupils really work at their jobs. One school of thought holds that the essential function of college training is to teach the pupil "the art of living." The other view is that the chief function of the college is to teach the students how to earn a living, and how to contribute directly to human welfare while doing so. In either case, the necessity of thought is obvious. The student of the Humanities and of the great philosophies has learned nothing if he cannot apply his studies to life as it is lived today. The chemist or engineer who merely carries out routine activities learned in school has no more to offer than has the tradesman who learned his job at the side of a skilled craftsman; and he is probably less trained in how to live than the craftsman's apprentice. Methods of teaching in college vary far more than they do in lower schools of course. At one end of the scale, we have the lecture room with 200 impersonal faces to whom the lecturer talks. If he is capable, he accomplishes much, but far less than he would in a smaller, more intimate group. The theory behind such instruction is that, by the time a pupil reaches college, he should know what he wants, and know enough to take advantage of all thatis offered. The burden is upon the pupil, not the teacher, who is required only to know his subject well, and to present it intelligibly. At the other extreme informal session invoving only a few individuals, with the instructor merely a guide in the discussions. Between these two extremes is the small class--twenty or so pupils--working with, not under an intellignet, interesting teacher. At their best, such classes became very much like informal bull-sessions. The instructor does little but ask penetrating questions, or throw out ideas for the students to chow on. The business of answering such questions; questions of such a type, and presented in such a fashion that the intelligent pupil wants to answer them; becomes a splendid forward step on the road to learning how to think. I had an instructor in educational methods who taught that way, and the classes were both profitable and enjoyable. And the young woman who taught my summer school classes in (Continued on page 13)