Gain, Loss, and Problem in Recent History Teaching

BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM MACDONALD, OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.

The newer methods of history teaching which were authoritatively set forth for the first time in this country in the report of the Committee of Seven of the American Historical Association, and which during the past ten years have increasingly made their way in the better secondary schools, have had for their aim the emancipation of history from the bondage of mere mechanical routine, the clearer discrimination of essentials and non-essentials, the use of comparison and judgment as well as of memory in the mastery of historical knowledge, the systematic exploration of books other than the textbook, and the intelligent correlation of the subject with literature, art, economics, geography, and other kindred fields.

That there should have been criticism, not seldom unfriendly, of the new methods and their results is only natural. The new procedure had to be learned by teachers as well as by pupils, and its application to the conditions of particular schools determined by careful study of local possibilities and needs. What was possible in a large and generously supported school was not equally attainable in a small and poor one; and it was inevitable that mistakes should be made even by those most interested in making the new work a success. No more in history than in language or mathematics, both of which have undergone pedagogical reformation in our day, was perfection to be won at the outset.

All things considered, however, it seems to me indisputable that, wherever there has been an honest and earnest attempt to make the new methods successful, a gratifying and very considerable measure of success has been attained. Broadly speaking, the formal recitation, based mainly upon the study of a textbook, has been given up. The history of England is no longer generally studied by the reigns of sovereigns, nor the history of the United States by presidential administrations. There is wide use of source books and documents, and much intelligent reading in narrative histories, biographies, journals, letters, travels, and other literature. Map-drawing is extensively required, and illustrated lectures or talks and historical excursions have been made to contribute their wealth of information and interest. From every point of view, the position of history in the school curriculum is more dignified and rational than it used to be, its pedagogical method more intelligent, its fruition in knowledge and power more valuable.

No method of teaching, however, is ever so bad that its abandonment is not attended with some loss to the pupil. In spite of all the success which has undeniably come about in these ten years of thoughtful and friendly effort, there still remain a number of steps imperatively to be taken before the teaching of history in secondary schools can, without serious qualification, be pronounced satisfactory. There is still a woeful need of trained history teachers. While the larger city high schools and many private schools are praiseworthy exceptions, it nevertheless remains true that the majority of schools do not yet think it necessary to choose for the historical department a teacher specially trained for that work. The subject is still too often assigned to this teacher or that who happens to have the necessary free time, but whose serious equipment lies in some other field. Nothing short of sound and extended college training in history should be deemed a sufficient preparation for the teaching of history in a secondary school, just as nothing short of such training, and the frank recognition of its importance by school authorities, will overcome the unfortunate reluctance of the best college graduates to enter secondary school work. No graduate of Brown University can receive from the department of history a certificate of fitness to teach history in a high school or academy who has not completed with credit at least four courses, each of three hours a week for a year, and one of them a course of research; and I should be glad did conditions in the schools make it possible to raise, as they do make it increasingly easy to enforce this minimum requirement.

A second crying need is for better equipment of the historical department. The development of school libraries has not yet made much progress, and the use of public libraries by large classes has obvious practical limitations. Schools which willingly spend money for scientific apparatus decline to spend money for books, pictures, and other illustrative material. The equipment of wall-maps is often exceedingly poor, historical maps being often lacking altogether except in the field of ancient history. Until this lack is supplied, we must expect that the teacher will from necessity rely mainly upon the textbook, at the cost of failing to meet the most fundamental condition of the newer methods of history teaching.

Perhaps the most serious charge that is lodged against the new method is that it fails to give the pupil exact knowledge, and even discriminates against exactness and precision. My observation as an examiner of applicants for admission to college leads me to believe that there is force in this charge. Undoubtedly the amount of ground which is expected to be covered by those who take any one of the four fields recommended by the Committee of Seven is very great, in the field of medieval and modern European history quite too great. Where the time allotted to the course in the curriculum is insufficient, as it often is, or where the teacher is incompetent, or where the facilities of the department are inadequate, it is inevitable that the work should be slighted and the results upon examination appear unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, also, in our zeal for the broad view and the vivifying treatment, we have tended unconsciously to depreciate the value of exact knowledge, and have allowed ourselves to think that because the function of memorizing may easily be overworked, the memory has no place in the study of history at all.

The examiners in history for the College Entrance Examination Board have learned that, unless they ask for dates, no dates will be given; that the treatment of specific questions of limited scope is prevailingly slovenly, indicative of loose thinking and tolerated looseness of expression; and that the simplest questions will often be carelessly misread. I am sure that we have not yet solved the problem of examining in history either in school or in college, but I am also compelled to think that the greatest weakness of history teaching at present, in those schools in which the new program is being applied, is that it so often fails to give the pupil a definite knowledge of anything. I do not despair, however. There are signs of improvement, growing in number and significance every year; and with the increased employment of skilled teachers, the provision of better facilities for teaching, and the more generous recognition of the importance of the subject, we may, I think, confidently look for results commensurate with those admittedly attained in other branches of the school curriculum.