The steps in such a methodical treatment. The character of the steps to be taken in such a methodical treatment of facts corresponds roughly to the steps in Warren Colburn's method of analytic induction described above. In his "Outlines' Herbart introduced the statement of them as follows:

[1] Some teachers lay great stress on the explication, step by step, of the smaller and the smallest components of the subject, and insist on a similar reproduction on the part of the pupils. [2] Others prefer to teach by conversation, and allow themselves and their pupils great freedom of expression. [3] Others, again, call especially for the leading thoughts, but demand that these be given with accuracy and precision, and in the prescribed order. [4] Others, finally, are not satisfied until their pupils are self-actively exercising their minds in systematic thinking.

Various methods of teaching may thus arise; it is not necessary, however, that one should be habitually employed to the exclusion of the rest. We may ask rather whether each does not contribute its share to many-sided culture. [1] In order that a multitude of facts may be apprehended, explications or analyses are needed to prevent confusion; but since a synthesis is equally essential, [2] the latter process may be started by conversation, [3] continued by lifting into prominence the cardinal thoughts, and [4] completed by the methodical, independent thinking of the pupil: [1] clearness, [2] association, [3] system, [4] method.

On closer inspection we find that instead of being mutually exclusive, these various modes of instruction are requisite, one by one, in the order given above, for every group, small or large, of subjects to be taught. . . . [1] During the first stage, when the clear apprehension of the individual object or fact is the main thing, the shortest and most familiar words and sentences are the most appropriate. . .

...

[2] For association, the best mode of procedure is informal conversation, because it gives the pupil an opportunity to test and to change the accidental union of his thoughts, to multiply the links of connection, and to assimilate, after his own fashion, what he has learned. It enables him, besides, to do at least a part of all of this in any way that happens to be the easiest and most convenient. He will thus escape the inflexibility of thought that results from a purely systematic learning.

[3] System on the other hand, calls for a more connected discourse, and the period of presentation must be separated more sharply from the period of repetition. By exhibiting and emphasizing the leading principles, system impresses upon the minds of pupils the value of organized knowledge; through its greater completeness it enriches their

store of information. But pupils are incapable of appreciating either advantage when the systematic presentation is introduced too early.

[4] Skill in systematic thinking the pupil will obtain through the solution of assigned tasks, his own independent attempts, and their correction. For such will show when he has fully grasped the general principles, and whether he is able to recognize them in and apply them to particulars.

These remarks on the initial analysis and the subsequent gradual uniting of the matter taught, hold true, in general and in detail, of the most diverse objects and branches of instruction. (4: §§67-69.)

Do these steps apply to the lesson unit or the subject as a whole?- The above account of the four steps in methodical instruction was presented in Herbart's own words because it took no more space than would be required to restate it, and because it furnishes a better basis for determining Herbart's real meaning. There is one point that is not clear, however, and that is whether these steps were intended to apply to each topical unit or to each subject as a whole. The extreme followers of Herbart have applied them to each topical unit or instruction unit. On the other hand, according to Sallwurk (12: 816-817), neither in his theory nor in his practice at Göttingen did Herbart consider these as steps in the teaching of lessons, but rather as steps in the organization of the subject as a whole, and even years might elapse between the first and fourth steps. In the discussion quoted above, Herbart made some comments which seem to substantiate Sallwurk's points. Thus in calling attention to the necessity of avoiding fatigue he said:

... In order to have time enough for this, the systematic presentation must in many cases be postponed until long after the first lessons in the elements have begun, and conversely the rudiments of a subject frequently have to be at least touched upon long before connected instruction can be thought of. Many a principle needs to be approached from a great distance. (4: $70. See also § 120.)

Correlation. Organization of subject matter necessary for moral ends. In the discussion of method Herbart stated that facts needed thorough methodical treatment in order to

affect the pupil's personal behavior. This is about all there is to his notion of the theory of correlation, except that it involves the building up of associations between subjects instead of merely between principles within the same subject. This relating of subjects is clearly suggested in the following quotation concerning mathematics:

Mathematical studies, from elementary arithmetic to higher mathematics, are to be linked to the pupil's knowledge of nature, and so to his experience, in order to gain admission into his sphere of thought. Instruction in mathematics, however thorough, fails pedagogically when the ideas generated form an isolated group. They are usually soon forgotten, or, if retained, contribute but little toward personal worth. (4: § 39.)

On the other hand, it is important to notice here, as we have done before, that Herbart placed very definite limitations on his theory, saying:

But it would be an error to argue that one who is being initiated into one subject ought to combine with that subject a second, third or fourth, on the ground that subjects one, two, three and four are essentially interrelated. This conclusion holds for scholars [that is, advanced specialists], who, so far as they are personally concerned, have long passed beyond preliminary pedagogical considerations, and even in their case it applies only to those branches which are intimately connected with their specialties; it has nothing to do with the psychological conditions by which the course of education must be governed. (4: §219.)

These careful statements contrast very strongly with the exaggerated interpretations of correlation made by some of Herbart's followers, which will be discussed later.

This will conclude our discussion of Herbart's own work and theories. We have demonstrated that his connection with Pestalozzi and with the new humanistic movement, and his experience as a tutor, were the important factors in determining his educational theories. We have summarized the latter, in his own words as far as possible, as they relate to the aim of education and its subject matter and methods. It remains to show how these theories were taken up and elaborated (sometimes exaggerated) by his followers.

The Herbartian movement. Historical development in Germany. Popularity delayed. - Herbart died in 1841, and his pedagogy did not attain great popularity in Germany until about 1865. Since then his theories have been so influential that the controversial literature relating to them is overwhelming. There were two primary factors in this popularizing ; namely, (1) the theoretical publications of Tuiskon Ziller (1817-1883); and (2) the practical development of Herbartian methods at the University of Jena.

Ziller started popular interest in Herbart's theories, 1865. Ziller was a professor at the University of Leipzig. He published a number of minor works on education, but the appearance in 1865 of his book entitled "Basis of the Doctrine of Instruction as a Moral Force" was practically the foundation of popular interest in Herbart in Germany. This interest led in 1868 to the establishment of a special educational society for the study of Herbart's doctrines. Ziller was president of this society, and it soon was represented by local organizations all over the country.

Practical developments at Jena, 1874. — The pedagogical seminary and practice school at the University of Jena was established in 1874. At first it did not represent the extreme form of Herbartianism which Ziller advocated; but in 1885 it came under the direction of Professor William Rein, who developed the actual practice on the Ziller plan. This school has been particularly influential because of the thorough way in which the teachers who were studying the methods were made to appreciate the actual work done with the children according to the Herbartian principles. Moreover, Rein's course of study for the eight years of the elementary school was worked out as early as 1881 in complete detail, showing exactly what was done. For the first grade alone the course of study fills one hundred ninety-eight pages, and the complete work constitutes two large volumes. The teachers who were studying the methods would go to see a lesson taught,

and then would meet for a thorough discussion of it, threshing out completely all the problems of teaching involved in it.

Thus there have been three main factors in the extreme development of Herbartianism in Germany: (1) the complete and exaggerated theoretical exposition by Ziller; (2) the elaborate printed course of study for the eight grades of the elementary school; (3) the efficient combination of practical demonstration and theoretical justification in the training of teachers at Jena.

Historical development in the United States. Enthusiasm in the nineties. — A great wave of enthusiastic interest in Herbartian principles swept over the United States, beginning about 1890. It was due to the influence of a number of Americans who had studied at Jena in the later eighties and returned to America filled with zeal for the Jena system of pedagogy. The geographical center of this interest in the United States was northern Illinois, especially in the normal schools. The following data are a few examples from the movement. Charles De Garmo studied in Germany about 1886, and published "The Essentials of Method" in 1889. Charles McMurry studied at Jena about 1887, and published his "General Method" in 1892. Frank McMurry studied at Jena in 1889, and published with Charles McMurry The Method of the Recitation" in 1897. These three books have been the most influential in propagating Herbartian methods in the United States as the basis of the training of teachers in normal schools. In addition, the practical organization of the training work and practice teaching at Jena has been copied in many normal schools, sometimes in minute detail.

A national Herbart society was organized in 1892, in imitation of the corresponding German organization, and enrolled many of the leading American educators. Its proceedings for the first three years concerned strictly Herbartian topics, such as correlation, interest, apperception, moral education, etc. This strictly Herbartian character soon began to