The Organization of the Recitation

BY NORMAN MACLAREN TRENHOLME, PROFESSOR OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI.

The Importance of the Recitation.

The most vital thing in history teaching is the recitation, for no matter how well the teacher has been prepared in the subject matter or how admirably the field of study has been mapped out, poor work in the class room will mean general failure. The reason for this is not hard to discover; the recitation is that part of the work of the teacher in which closest relations are established with the minds of the pupils, and it is above all things important that teachers should realize this and make the most of their opportunities to guide and direct the pupils’ thought and study. Too often the recitation is made a mere repetition of facts in the text-book, poorly organized and presented in an uninteresting and unconvincing way. History that is taught without understanding and enthusiasm and without proper organization of the subject matter had better not have been taught at all, as it results in dislike and contempt for the subject as being nought but a catalogue of meaningless names, dates and events. Yet how few history teachers seem to realize their opportunity to make history mean more than this. How frequently one sees even well-meaning teachers plodding along in the same old rut, painfully extracting unrelated facts from boys and girls, emphasizing the external events and neglecting what lies beneath, asking direct questions and getting “yes” and “no” answers, and being generally satisfied that they are good history teachers and fulfilling their mission in life. The recitation conducted by such a teacher usually will begin abruptly with some question on the assignment for that day and will probably end abruptly by the gong sounding its warning and a hurried assignment for next day being made as the class prepares to leave. All the important qualities of a good recitation, relation to the previous day’s lesson, careful study by teacher and class of the new lesson, and a well-considered assignment of work for the next day are in whole or part absent. It is not as if it were difficult to make the recitation a success, or meant more work for the teacher, for, on the contrary a well-organized recitation is easier to handle than one conducted without organization, and the work of the teacher is made pleasanter through the interest of the pupils in the work. History when properly taught is bound to hold the interest and attention of the average boy or girl. If it does not do so, then the presumption is that it is not being properly taught and that the teacher needs to bring more understanding and method into the work.

The General Organization of the Recitation.

The fundamental idea in the organization and conduct of the history recitation should be that of building a little more on foundations already laid, of adding new knowledge and ideas of historical importance to those already a part of the pupils’ background, and of preparing the minds of the pupils for further additions in the near future. The most discouraging thing that a history teacher has to face is the seemingly evanescent character of the pupils’ background. It slips away and there is nothing to build on or add to, and so the relation of events to each other and the growth of important movements are not understood or appreciated. This discouraging aspect of history teaching can only be remedied by careful attention to the background of the day’s lesson, and therefore the first ten or fifteen minutes of the period should be devoted to a general discussion or recitation on the lesson or lessons previously studied that are most closely connected with the new lesson of the day. Then should follow a careful study of the new lesson itself, occupying the main part of the period. Towards the close, however, five or ten minutes should be allowed for the assignment of the work for the next meeting of the class. Thus the general organization of the recitation will consist of: (a) The recitation or review on the previous lesson or lessons; (b) the study of the new lesson; and (c) the assignment for next day’s work.

(a) The Recitation on the Previous Lesson.

In the main, this should be done by the pupils rather than by the teacher, as a more lasting impression is made on their minds by leading them to recall and associate past events and movements with what they are then studying. The points in the previous work that should be especially emphasized are those of general importance and significance in historical development rather than the minor details and incidents. The recitation can thus be made to serve as a summary of previous ones, and particularly of the one just before. The teacher must be careful not to give too much of the period to such a review, however, unless a special general review has been planned for. There is always the temptation to prolong the review beyond proper limits. It should be rigidly confined to subject matter that has importance as a background for the new lesson of the day. If the previous lesson does not stand in close connection with the new lesson little or no time should be spent in reviewing it, but attention should be given to other more closely-related events that have been studied. The utility of this part of the recitation in giving background for the new lesson is easily seen. If the lesson is a part of a series of recitations on the same general topic, then one introductory review will serve for the series, and each separate lesson can be reviewed in connection with the succeeding one. A broad and comprehensive attitude in reviewing is always desirable, and no opportunity to establish ideas of continuity with past and future should be neglected by the teacher.

(b) The Study of the New Lesson.

If the opening part of the recitation has been properly done, the transition to the new lesson will be an easy and natural one, and the connection with the past will be well established. The teacher now has the opportunity to test the pupils’ understanding of the new topic and to draw them out in discussion concerning the information in the text-book, source book, and collateral reading assigned for the day. The teacher’s questions should be carefully thought out, and should call for answers in which the information is given in connection with its historical importance and significance rather than as mere facts that have been memorized for recitation. All direct questions, calling for a “yes” or “no” answer should be avoided, for with such a question before him the student has an equal chance to be right as well as to be wrong. Almost equally bad are questions that call merely for a name or a date. Instead of asking: “Was Rome able to defend herself from the Visigoths?” time will be saved by asking: “Why did Rome find it difficult to meet the Visigothic attack,” and, instead of asking “Who was the leader of the Visigoths?”—a fact which every pupil should know—a better question would be: “What caused the Visigoths to invade Italy?” While it is important that the teacher’s questions should be clear, yet it is not a bad thing pedagogically to ask a question that requires some thought on the part of the pupil before it is answered. Pupils frequently say: “I don’t understand your question,” and sometimes this answer is justified, more frequently, however, it is the pupil’s own inattention, and the majority of the class will understand the question and be able to answer it correctly. The harder questions a teacher asks in the way of calling for thoughtful interpretation the better training students are getting.

In the matter of the relative contribution of teacher and class to the discussion, it may be said that a teacher who talks too little is as bad as a teacher who talks too much. As a general rule the college graduate teaching history who is well informed in his subject matter tends to talk too much in the class room, and his study of the new lesson is more of a lecture than a recitation. As an observer of such a teacher remarked, “The young man made a very good recitation himself, while the class listened.” On the other hand, the teacher who has less background of historical knowledge is inclined to make the class do all the work while he or she acts as inquisitor and perpetual question mark. Nothing is contributed in the way of information or interpretation save what the pupils have acquired from the text-book, and the result is an unscholarly and rather barren drill. The true history teacher will mingle knowledge with method, and will add to and amplify the subject matter by taking part sympathetically in the recitation, without, however, monopolizing the discussion. In calling on members of the class to take part in the discussion, attention should be given to those who need it most, rather than to the bright and well-informed pupils. The dull or inattentive pupil, who is whispering to his neighbor or not paying proper attention, needs more real teaching than the bright boy or girl. The interest of all members of the class should be aroused, and voluntary questions, discussions and debates encouraged rather than discouraged. If the pupils are inattentive and uninterested, it is certainly a criticism of the teacher and of his or her power of exposition and interrogation.

Much of the success of the recitation on the new lesson will depend on the way the subject matter is handled. Some leading idea or problem should form the center of the discussion, which should take the form of saving or explaining the question in an historically true manner by bringing out the main points of development. In the course of such a discussion the application of the topic to present conditions and its relation to the past should be kept in mind and questions asked from both viewpoints. This applies particularly to topics in medieval and modern, English and American history fields which are, on the whole, more closely connected with modern civilization than the field of ancient history can possibly be. If the problem studied is practically completed in the lesson for the day, and a new topic to be taken up next time, then a summary should be made at the end of this part of the recitation. If, however, the same line of historical development is to be studied next day, such a summary will form part of the next recitation. Thus the question of a summary at the close of the recitation on the new lesson depends on the nature of the next lesson to be studied.

(c) The Assignment of the Next Day’s Work.

The assignment of the work of the class for its next meeting should be very carefully and systematically attended to by the teacher. This assignment is best made at the close of the period because it concerns the review of the lesson just studied, as well as the new lesson. It should be taken down in note books by the pupils so that they will know definitely what is expected of them when they next meet. As far as practicable the teacher should put the assignment for the preliminary recitation on the previous lesson or lessons in the form of problem questions calling for causes and results that explain historical phenomena. Problem questions can also be given in connection with the assignment on the new lesson, though here a topical assignment is not so much out of place if the topic is well selected so as to suggest the main problem. Questions of detail in an assignment are out of place, and, of course, an assignment of so many pages, irrespective of problems or topics, is absurd. If collateral reading is assigned in source books or secondary works, it should be done understandingly and carefully, and only in such amounts as can be effectively used by the teacher and class to supplement the text-book. A question on the collateral reading will also be desirable.

In following out such a plan of organizing the recitation as has been just described, the teacher should, for some time at least, plan out the recitation period and its various phases in advance.