CHAPTER XVII

MORAL TRAINING THROUGH A METHODICAL, INTERESTED STUDY OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE; THE HERBARTIANS1

Main points of the chapter. 1. The Pestalozzian methods domi nated instruction in the scientific and the formal subjects of the elementary-school curriculum during the nineteenth century.

2. The Herbartians, on the other hand, emphasized the study of his. tory and literature which Rousseau and Pestalozzi had considered unimportant and even harmful for young children.

3. Herbart (1776–1841) was influenced to do this by the eighteenthcentury enthusiasm for Greek life and literature (the new humanism championed by Goethe and Schiller).

4. To attain the moral aim of education Herbart emphasized the Greek idea of abiding, many-sided interests as the aim of instruction.

5. To assure abiding interests, he emphasized using present interests as an important means.

6. He emphasized the methodical organization of the material of each subject, and a moderate degree of the interrelating of various subjects, so as to make them a part of the student's personality.

7. The Herbartian pedagogy was popularized in Germany through the theoretical publications of Ziller (1865) and through its practical application at the University of Jena practice school (1874—).

8. A wave of enthusiasm for the Herbartian pedagogy swept over the United States about 1890.

9. This later Herbartian movement in Europe and America has emphasized the following points: (1) the concentration of all school work around a central core, usually of literary and historical subject matter; (2) the serial arrangement of subject matter according to the chronology of its historical development (the culture-epochs theory); (3) the organization of every unit of instruction according to the five formal steps of instruction, namely, preparation, presentation, comparison, generalization, and application.

1 Special supplementary reading for advanced students: Herbart, "Outlines of Educational Doctrine." See above, p. xxiv, for directions.

Pestalozzians commonly neglected history and literature. The two preceding chapters, which summarized the influence of Pestalozzians on the teaching of various subjects, showed that the dominant reform tendencies in the teaching of elementary science, geography, arithmetic, form study, oral composition, reading, writing, and music during the nineteenth century were Pestalozzian. On the other hand, in the teaching of history and literature, the lack of direct influence from Pestalozzi is as striking as was his positive influence in other subjects. Rousseau had specifically rejected history as a subject appropriate for children, and Pestalozzi gave it little or no place in his curriculum.

Herbartians emphasized the teaching of history and literature. Herbart and his followers have contributed somewhat to the development of the teaching of the subjects in which Pestalozzi was interested, but they have not improved much on the methods of the best Pestalozzians. On the other hand, their largest influence has been on the teaching of history and literature for moral training. In this connection they have formulated a discussion of interests and of the methodical treatment of subject matter which has become the accepted basis for the training of teachers in many places.

Herbart's connection with Pestalozzi very close. In the discussion of Pestalozzi the fact was demonstrated that he was directly inspired by Rousseau. Similarly, in the case of Herbart, it is important to appreciate the direct connection between Herbart and the Pestalozzian movement. As noted in Chapter XIII, Herbart visited Pestalozzi's school at Burgdorf in 1799 and made a special study of the latter's methods. An account of his impressions from this visit was published in 1802 for the benefit of certain ladies in Bremen who were interested in Pestalozzi's work. This account appeared in a German periodical and was entitled "On Pestalozzi's most Recent Publication: 'How Gertrude taught her Children."" In this article Herbart described what he saw in Pestalozzi's

school and defended several of the practices current therein, concerning which some questions had been raised. He suggested supplementing Pestalozzi's sense-perception instruction

with a study of triangles. This suggestion Herbart carried out on an elaborate scale in a later publication (second edition, 1804), in which he maintained that mathematics is the key to training in sense perception and drawing. This book

bore the title "Pestalozzi's Idea of an ABC of Sense Perception investigated and scientifically carried out as a Cycle of Preliminary Exercise in the Apperception of Forms." At another time, in an address delivered in Bremen, Herbart, after considering certain narrow examples of the Pestalozzian practice, said, "The whole field of actual and possible sense perception is open to the Pestalozzian method; its movements in it [this field] will grow constantly freer and larger.” (1: 61.)

These incidents show that Herbart was closely in touch with Pestalozzi's methods, and that he defended the latter and interpreted and applied them in a broad way.

Herbart's career almost purely academic. Herbart's life (1776-1841) was spent so exclusively as a tutor and as a university teacher that the points that are significant in relation to his pedagogical achievements may be briefly summarized. The reverse of Pestalozzi, he manifested little interest in the revolutionary social events which characterized the age in which he lived. The significant factors in his career were (1) three years' experience as a tutor; (2) the connection with Pestalozzi; (3) pedagogical lectures and publications as a university professor of philosophy; (4) conduct of a pedagogical seminary and practice school.

1. Three years as a tutor. At the age of twenty-one, having completed three years of university study, he accepted a position as tutor to three children in an aristocratic Swiss family. The three boys were respectively fourteen, ten, and eight years of age. Herbart taught them for nearly three years (1797-1799). So profitable was this experience in providing a knowledge of the development of children and of the practical problems of teaching, that Herbart always claimed that such a thorough study of the development of a few children is the best basis for pedagogical training. Much of this experience is reflected in his very concrete discussions of the characteristics and the individual differences of children,

which are contained in his books on pedagogy the same sort of careful analysis of child experience as is found in the works of Rousseau and Pestalozzi.

2. The connection with Pestalozzi has been described above.

3. Educational publications as a professor of philosophy. - Herbart taught at the University of Göttingen from 1802 to 1808, at the University of Königsberg from 1809 to 1833, and again at Göttingen from 1833 to 1841. Some of his university positions ranked among the highest professorships of philosophy in Germany. As a part of his duties Herbart gave courses of lectures on pedagogy, which interested him fully as much, if not more, than did philosophy. He published a number of books on pedagogy, of which two are most significant. These are known in their English translations as "The Science of Education," published in 1806, which contained many difficult and abstract metaphysical references; and "The Outlines of Educational Doctrine," published in 1835. This was the product of his matured career and is one of the most systematic, sane, and practical discussions of pedagogy ever written.

4. Conducted a pedagogical seminary. - At Königsberg Herbart conducted a pedagogical seminary for the advanced scientific consideration of educational problems, and a small practice school (twenty children); the latter provided experience for prospective school superintendents and opportunities for the experimental investigation of methods of teaching. Herbart taught mathematics in the practice school for some time.

Herbart's metaphysics a useless encumbrance to his pedagogy for young students. The study of Herbart's pedagogy has often been made unnecessarily difficult because of the following facts: (1) his position was that of a professor of philosophy; (2) some of his pedagogical writings are filled with metaphysical references; and (3) he constructed