The Ohio Industrial School for Boys, opened at Lancaster, Ohio, in 1856, was the pioneer American institution on the cottage plan. The cottages were described in 1882 as follows:

The family buildings are arranged in a segment of a circle around the main building, with the exception of a double building, called the Ohio, for the use of the very youngest boys, which is separated from the main and other buildings nearly half a mile, but is connected with the rest of the institution by a good board walk. These family buildings are named after the rivers in the state.

The building for the youngest children accommodated one hundred boys, those for the older children accommodated fifty. The large building for younger children contained schoolrooms, living rooms for the "elder brother and his family,' sitting rooms for boys in the evening, sleeping rooms for teachers and pupils, a play room, workshop, etc. Here "home life more attractive than they had ever known awaited most of the inmates."

Pestalozzian educative labor replaces prison contract labor. These quotations indicate the change from the spirit of prison life to the Pestalozzian spirit of home life. A similar change has taken place in the industrial work. On the old plan this consisted of contract sewing and tailoring, cigar making, brush making, glove making, knitting, shirt making, the cane seating of chairs, etc. These were factory industries of little educative or economic value for the individual child. For these have been substituted the domestic industries of the institutions, and other activities connected with the maintenance of the plant, such as farming, gardening, care of stock, carpentering, blacksmithing, plumbing, painting, brickmaking, furniture making, etc. In addition to these, other special trades, such as printing and telegraphy, have been added.

Pestalozzian industrial education competing with manual training. The special significance of this movement has been sufficiently indicated in the previous discussion. Its general significance appears when it is compared with the

manual-training" movement, and with the recent tendencies to introduce direct industrial training into the public schools. The Pestalozzian industrial education, as successfully organized in practice in Europe (c. 1830), antedated the manualtraining movement in the United States (1876) by about half a century. It differed from the latter in aiming, to a considerable degree, directly at special efficiency in some trade or occupation. The manual-training movement, on the other hand, emphasized general or formal values as opposed to specialized efficiency; that is, it aimed at "making the hand the obedient servant of the brain, training the eye for good form and shape, and teaching neatness and correctness in the execution of their work." The Pestalozzian system has proved effective in special institutions, but has not had a chance in the American public schools. Manual training has had some opportunity to be tested in the public schools, and many educators affirm that the results have not been satisfactory either from the standpoint of general education or from the standpoint of industrial education. The recent movement for industrial education in the United States has tended to emphasize the necessity of training in specific industrial processes, which was the prominent element in the Pestalozzian system. The present tendency seems to be to experiment in the public schools with the modified Pestalozzian system as it is found in some juvenile reform schools.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

1. BARNARD, H. National Education in Europe. (C. W. Bardeen, Syracuse, 1854, second edition.) Contains a complete discussion of the European movement down to 1852.

2. BACHE. Report of President Bache of Girard College, Philadelphia, on Education in Europe. (1839.) Rare. Special sections dealing with reform schools.

3. CLEWES, E. W. Educational Legislation of the Colonial Governments, Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy, etc.

4. WOODBRIDGE, WILLIAM. The American Annals of Education, 1831-1832, Vols. I and II. Rare. Contains letter from Fellenberg outlining his career; also best accounts of Hofwyl institutions.

5. Snedden, D. S. American Juvenile Reform Schools, Columbia University Contributions to Education. Brief historical material; best account of recent tendencies.

6. United States Commissioner of Education, Report for 1882-1883. P. ccii; also other years. Contains many special reports on contemporary conditions in reform schools.

7. GUIMPS, ROGER DE. Pestalozzi, his Aim and Work. (D. Appleton and Company, 1890.)

8. Pestalozzi, H. Leonard and Gertrude. (D. C. Heath & Co.)

CHAPTER XV

PESTALOZZIAN OBJECT TEACHING AND ORAL

INSTRUCTION

ELEMENTARY SCIENCE; HOME GEOGRAPHY; PRIMARY

ARITHMETIC

Main points of the chapter. 1. Pestalozzian objective and oral methods represent the largest practical influence of Pestalozzi in carrying out the principles of instruction advocated by Rousseau.

2. Objective teaching created a new technique of oral instruction which is found actively competing with textbook instruction in the United States from 1860 on.

3. (a) Unsystematic object teaching was succeeded by systematic object teaching in which some scientific terms were learned.

(b) This was succeeded by elementary natural science in which learning the matured, technical, scientific classifications was considered to be the first step in scientific culture.

(c) This was succeeded by nature study, which emphasizes the simple observational study of natural objects and processes, with elementary training in inquiry and investigation as the first step in scientific culture.

4. From Rousseau through Pestalozzi, Ritter, and Guyot to Colonel Parker and present-day practice we have a continuous development of the teaching of home geography intimately related to the development of geography as a science.

5. Pestalozzi is the dominant figure in the development of primary arithmetic, which, as objective, oral, mental arithmetic was popularized in the United States by Warren Colburn's "First Lessons in Arithmetic on the Plan of Pestalozzi" (1821).

6. In connection with all these subjects the Pestalozzian emphasis on training in oral expression was prominent.

7. It is evident, from the material presented in this chapter, that the dominant reforms in four phases of elementary-school work (science, geography, arithmetic, and language) during the nineteenth century were in a large measure directly due to Pestalozzi's influence.

Pestalozzi's most important principle of instruction. The preceding chapter discussed the practical development of Pestalozzi's principle that elementary education should be made a means of social reform by providing industrial training for juvenile delinquents. It represented the phase of education that he was most concerned with up to the beginning of his work at Burgdorf (1799). At that time he changed his attention to an improvement of the methods of teaching the ordinary subjects, especially in primary schools. Henceforth he was engaged, for the most part, in an endeavor to "psychologize education." One of the chief methods of doing this was to base all elementary instruction on sense perception.

Pestalozzi protested vigorously against teaching children words and phrases that they did not understand, and insisted upon the substitution of real experience with natural objects as the fundamental starting point of instruction. He considered this his most important educational reform, saying:

If I look back and ask myself what I have really done toward the improvement of the methods of elementary instruction, I find that in recognizing observation as the absolute basis of all knowledge, I have established the first and most important principle of instruction. (9: 74.)

We have seen how the influence of the Reformation and the invention of printing tended to make learning to read and memorizing the catechism the fundamentals in elementary education. Calling attention to this, Pestalozzi said :

In Europe the culture of the people has ended by becoming an empty chattering, fatal alike to real faith and real knowledge; an instruction of mere words and outward show, unsubstantial as a dream, and not only absolutely incapable of giving us the quiet wisdom of faith and love, but bound, sooner or later, to lead us into incredulity and superstition, egotism and hardness of heart. . . . Everything confirms me in my opinion that the only way of escaping a civil, moral, and religious degradation, is to have done with the superficiality, narrowness and other errors of our popular instruction, and recognize sense impression as the real foundation of our knowledge. (4: 233.)