Слике страница

history in our great institutions. Furthermore, I should like to see men prepared especially for this peculiarly difficult form of teaching in which there is often too much guess-work. As Professor Show has pointed out, this question is in its infancy, because the whole matter of history teaching is still experimental. I wish to emphasize also the point that we are dealing with a course for immature students. Now if we agree with Professor Gwatkin that there are three fairly definite steps in historical teaching, the first of which is to arouse interest, the second, to impart sound historical information, and the third, to teach sound methods of historical research and criticism, we must also agree that so far as introductory courses are concerned they must deal largely with the first two steps, with only a glimpse possibly of the third step; and throughout those three steps there must all the time run, in my opinion at least, the idea that the final, even though indirect, object of it all is not only to impart information or to make citizens, although these are of great importance, but also to develop certain human qualities, call them sympathy, call them imagination, call them tolerance, or what you will; but the development of these qualities is the ultimate goal which we cannot possibly evade. Once again, there are three steps in history teaching: (1) to stimulate interest; (2) to impart sound information; (3) to teach sound methods of historical research and criticism insofar as we can. The first two apply especially to the freshman; he cannot do much with the third, and therefore during the freshman year we must confine ourselves largely to the first two. Under ideal conditions we would not have to pay much attention to the first; but our conditions are not ideal. The ideal students would be on fire with interest; but as these conditions do not prevail, we must first arouse their interest, and the method by which that interest has to be aroused is a matter of detail that I do not need to deal with here. As to my own personal standpoint on that in connection with our experience at the University of Michigan, I should like to exonerate to a large extent the secondary school-teachers. There is too much recrimination between those who send and those who receive the freshmen. I believe that the entire fault is not with the teachers that send them to us, but is partly the result of general educational tendencies. Possibly the secondary school-teachers have carried a little too far the idea that the child is right in his likes and dislikes, but there are other reasons. Those of us who deal with freshmen are well aware of the general tendency in the direction of the modern field. I think that that tendency, along with much that is good, involves some very grave dangers. The demand for recent history, exclusively, it seems to me, is not at all a wholesome tendency from the standpoint of pedagogy. I will not say anything more about that; but let me say this, that our experience at the University of Michigan leads us to believe that many students who are clamoring for contemporary history, so called, are the very students who do not read the

newspapers; in other words, are interested neither in the present nor in the past. As to specific answers to these three questions: First, “Should the same field be offered as a first course for all students?” I should say “Yes,” with two provisos; and this would be my own personal answer to the question; of course there are many possible answers. I should say the same field should be possible and should be offered to the first year students, first, if numbers will permit it, and, second, if you have just the right man. At the University of Michigan, we have about 750 students taking freshman history, and we do not believe 750 students should be brought into a single course. We offer them three courses, therefore, and believe that several courses may well be given, provided that the right men are available to give them effectively. Otherwise, I should say “No,” most emphatically. It is not always possible to have just the right man for the place, a man who is both able and willing—because there are a good many men who are able but not willing to make the sacrifices that would be required in taking the time from their own research and from their own more satisfactory teaching experience, possibly connected with advance students. So that my answer will be “Yes, if numbers will permit, and you have the right man.” As to the second question, “If only one, what field should be chosen?” at present although we wish, Mr. Chairman, that we were in position to give a positive answer, I believe it is impossible to say. That course is best in any institution which enables that institution to work most effectively. At the present time it makes no great difference, in my opinion, whether that course be in ancient history, or whether it be in the modern field, so long as it is effectively given through the best available means. I think that on the whole probably the best case can be made out for the field of medieval and modern history, not modern alone, not medieval alone, but both. I hope that point can be discussed and be shown to be either right or wrong. “If more than one, what alternatives should be allowed?” Here again it is impossible under present conditions to give a categorical answer; but if more than one is given I should say that this might be chosen probably from among several alternatives; first, medieval and modern; second, medieval; third, modern; in the fourth place, the general field; but I would not care to insist upon this order. The English. ancient, and other special fields, I should like to defer to a later vear in the curriculum when the methods to be employed are more advanced and better suited to more mature students.


By JAMEs F. BALDw1N, VAss AR College.

Following the rule that the chairman has wisely laid down, I shall speak entirely from experience in my own college. Ten vears ago I thought it was a dogma based on tradition that the beginning course in history should be European, general. medieval, or medieval and modern, however it might be defined. I have since learned that nothing can be held by tradition, and that criticisms and questions are being raised as to the merits of such a course. Have we been giving too much attention to the Roman Empire? Do we need a survey of the Middle Ages? Are we modern enough? Would it be better to begin with English or American history? are some of the questions in point. Now there are certain reasons, strong enough, we think, that lead us to maintain the traditional course, if it be such, in Vassar College. One is, that since it is a compulsory course, required of all students either in their freshman or sophomore year, which is taken as a matter of fact by freshmen more than by sophomores, the course has a special relationship to the college curriculum as a whole. For it is to be considered as introductory not merely to the study of history, but to college work in general. For this purpose it seems to us that European history, as compared with English or American, has a marked advantage in that it is related to the greatest number of subjects taught in the college. French, German, English, Latin, Philosophy and Art are all given something of a background or starting-point in general history. If we were to split up the general course into a variety of alternative courses in history, as is sometimes proposed, I have little doubt that the faculty would soon question

the propriety of maintaining history as a required

subject. The department would then not only lose a proportion of students in history, it would fail also in making this contribution, that we deem of great value, to the general college work. Conditions may be different, I grant, in a large university like Michigan, where great diversities in the student body are to be met, but I am speaking of a college where the classes are fairly homogeneous. Furthermore, it seems to me that the beginning course, whatever its content may be, should be that which best inculcates certain fundamental ideas, in this case historical concepts. In the fall of the Roman Empire, for example, there is the lesson that out of destruction there comes construction and readjustment, while evolution and devolution go on simultaneously. No study bears out this thought so well as the course which connects present and modern times with the great civilization of the past. Such a connection is never so vividly shown in the detached history of England and America. Another concept derived from the study of European history, of even higher value than that just mentioned, is internationalism, or, rather, the negation of nationalism. Conceptions of the present day are intensely national, while current events testify to an age of national bigotry and its resultant evils. But in the history of the world nations are in fact of recent and casual growth. If we would have a historical course that puts things in their true perspective, it must not be local or national, but general. Again, foremost among the lessons to be learned from history, I believe, is a sense of time. That is to say, not dates or chronology alone, though these may help, but time as measured by what is accomplished.

Just as the geologic ages are defined by their deposits, so the periods of history, whether they be long or short, are marked by the things that are done. This idea in its fulness does not come from the study of a single period or a short space of time; even the three centuries of modern times is not enough. We need a perspective of the whole of European history and comparative views of one century or cycle with another. In this point a course in English history has manifest advantages over one in American history. As to the attack that is being made upon the course in general history, I know of none within our college itself. The criticism, or question, comes entirely from without, particularly from the schools that prefer not to give the natural prerequisite of the course. The preliminary requirement has been ancient history. But the high schools, while they are giving up the classics, are less and less inclined to teach ancient history. Where they are teaching it at all, they give it early in the school course farthest away from the student's present memory. There is a tendency, too, to allow for ancient history a shorter time than formerly, that is, three hours a week instead of five; so that existing standards become harder and harder to live up to. Shall the college therefore modify its requirement of ancient history? Under pressure from the New York City schools, which are teaching ancient history hardly at all, but are giving an excellent course in medieval and modern history, we have at length yielded to the extent of recognizing the latter course as a substitute for ancient history. Although it is but a temporary expedient, it probably forecasts a policy of alternative requirements in the future. Whether we shall go so far as to accept English or American history as similar alternatives, is less certain. An influence in this direction is felt from Bryn Mawr, whose preparatory schools are giving English instead of classical history. But for the sake of the homogeneity of our college classes, we have not as yet let down the bars further in the way of alternative entrance requirements. Thus the department is in the somewhat illogical position of receiving into its first course students of diverse preparation, some with ancient history and some with medieval and modern. The latter are going over the same ground twice. Is there danger here, between school and college, of duplication of work? In other departments, such as mathematics and language, there has been complaint of unnecessary duplication. But thus far in history no student has been found to be so surfeited with knowledge as to find the college course going over the ground a second time repetitious or uninteresting; she has in fact rather profited from the new point of view and method of the college teacher. If the need should arise, the students might be grouped, according to their previous training, in different sections without affecting the unity of the course. So that for all these reasons the integrity of the general course in European history, dating from the later days of the Roman Empire to the nineteenth century, required of all students in their first or second year, is likely to be maintained in our college for some years to come.


By JESSE E. WRENch, UNIVERSIY of Missouri.

The previous speakers have covered in the main much of the ground that I should like to cover. I was especially interested in the remarks of the chairman concerning the chaotic condition of the teaching of history. I suppose all of us are familiar with those text-books of high school history which label themselves, “ For high schools and colleges.” It speaks rather ill for our pedagogy that we are willing to accept such things and use them for high school and college class work. We cannot blame the poor teachers in high schools, because they have to take what the publishers send them; but it is a wonder that we are willing as college teachers of history to write such text-books, because the majority of the various texts that appear in that way bear the name of some one or the other of us. I am not directly but indirectly guilty myself as to one of these things; so I can speak with some feeling in the matter.

It seems to me that our course in History I is by far the most important course, to put it very platitudinously. In order to understand what we ought to give in this course, it is perhaps necessary to find out what exactly is its function. Mr. Frayer has said in his brief remarks some very pertinent things about what we ought to try to do; but I would like to look further than that and see just exactly what relationship the proper course should bear to the whole curriculum. You see, we teachers have been rather enthusiastic in our point of view in regard to this matter. We have looked at it entirely from our own standpoint, when we have spoken about the personality of the teacher as the dominant thing in determining what should be the type of course and the kind of work given in history. Will they stand for that sort of thing in economics, or in language, or even in the classics? Of course not

Now then, History I, it seems to me, fulfills a double function. In most colleges—in every one with which I am conversant—History I is almost always a required course, and its value is recognized in furthering the work of other departments, such as social science. The previous speaker has just spoken of its immense value in advancing other college work. It seems to me that is one of the things which must be taken into consideration in determining what shall be the field of History I, namely, its function in the university work.

In the second place, it seems to me that, since so many people in it are forced into it, we should take into consideration that these people are not in it because they want to be, but because they have to be in it; and therefore this course should be an attractive course. In order to be an attractive course it has further got to be something new, or something decidedly startling. In order to be something new you have got to go back to something that is relatively remote in a freshman's mind. The freshman comes up from high school as a rule with his last course in

American history. Therefore to put him into American history at once would be illogical, because he has just been over that ground, perhaps very much at first hand. This course should be flexible. I would not by any means rule out the personality of the teacher. It seems to me that personality plays a very large part, although I would go so far as to say that if a person cannot do anything but lecture he has no business in teaching History I. I would not like to say that lecturing has no part in a History I program. It does give opportunity for the personality of the teacher. But we should not try, by telling the student this, that, or the other thing, to make him or her a historian at the first shot. In fact, I was told only this morning about a course in history in which the average student was extremely disgusted, because there was so much pedantic effort in it. The method must be flexible in that it gives opportunity for the student to utilize some of his own ideas. Therefore it must have a field that is sufficiently broad, a scope that is broad enough to let other things in; therefore the field must not be too limited, because in a limited field you are going very much into details. Details, it seems to me, often injuriously affect the freshman's point of view. Turn the freshman loose on any one of these parallel source-books on the matter of details, and see where he gets with it. He cannot handle details; he only sees large things; so this course must cover relatively large things. This course must be efficient in that it gets somewhere. We have already heard what various things it has tried to do; but it seems to me that the course in History I, which is very largely for people who never take any more history, should get somewhere. Fifty or sixty per cent. of our own students in Missouri never take another course in history. The place for it does not permit of the assimilation of too many of the facts of history. Those facts that it does deal with should come out somewhere so as to connect with the present time and not drop off at 1870; because I disagree with that body of historians who feel that modern history leaves off at 1870 and everything after that is merely contemporary politics. This course, then, should have the three characteristics of attractiveness, flexibility, and efficiency. Now as to the possible fields of history that the course should deal with, it seems to me that there are three possible solutions; first, general history, covering the whole field from the cave man to Bismarck, as some one has so facetiously put it. Then there is another field of medieval-modern history, whose claims have been already presented by Mr. Frayer. Last of all, there is the modern history field.

It seems to me that we must take into consideration the question of the time that can be given to history. In our university we spend five hours a week for one semester. It is obviously impossible to get over the whole field of general history in that time. It might be possible to cover that field in a three-hour course given throughout the year where we have some time for elimination; but with a course that gives five hours

a week for a semester it is impossible to cover that general field. If it were possible to cover, it would be an ideal field, because this course in general history is the one that gives opportunity, if any, to the student really to comprehend what history is. I know there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to exactly what history is. It seems to me that the great and vital thing is the light that it throws on human development. The one thing that we get through the student's head by a proper history course is that idea of development—if we get it through his head at all. The difficult thing is to get that conception of gradual development and transformation that only a general course can really give us. We shall have to assume that the student has acquired, before you start out with him, a lot of things that you have not had time to teach him, and which you can only just briefly hint at in a course on medieval-modern history. Because for practical purposes I think that we must in the limited time at our disposal confine ourselves to medieval and modern, or modern with enough emphasis on the medieval to get the development point of view—the point of view of development extending over a long period of time. Otherwise the important effect of the beginning history is lacking. So I would put forth my plea for medieval and modern history, with a certain amount of emphasis on the medieval period. Now shall there be one, or more, courses of history? I think it is time that we set our foot down for one course. We have been working at cross-purposes too long. We have been giving this and that history, and depending upon personality or situation too much. In order to maintain our position in the college curriculum it seems to me that we should start out with some basic ideas of work and establish our theory on a sound scientific basis. We must have our developmental work. This developmental idea, as our chairman has said, should begin with our sophomore and go through the junior and senior work. I speak from personal experience in that matter. When I was in one of the great universities of the land I was slammed into a graduate course in the very early part of my career, and I have always felt a tremendous lack in a certain fundamental field that never should have been allowed to take place. But it does take place in many of our great institutions, simply because we have not a scientific standard of teaching, but are following a hit or miss sort of plan, depending too much upon the personality of the teacher.



The first year college course in history ought to have five qualifications. It ought to be suited for elementary training in the methods of historical study. The content ought to be inclusive enough to make it a foundation for general courses in other fields or adcanced courses in the same field of history. Its scope ought to be sufficiently extensive to give the student a general conception of history as a whole, and on the

other hand sufficiently restricted to permit intensive
study of typical institutions and significant move-
ments. It ought to meet in subject matter, as far as
possible, the recommendations of other departments
and the consequent demands of the students in those
departments; and lastly, it ought to emphasize by its
content the relation between the high school and the
That the first year course ought to teach the stu-
dent the elementary processes of historical study, re-
quires no argument. If this is properly done it will
make unnecessary the duplication and reduplication of
such elementary instruction in the subsequent courses,
and at the same time, provide a good working equip-
ment for that large group of students who at the end
of one or two years leave the university to take up the
teaching profession. Both ancient history and medie-
val history are well adapted to meet this requirement,
since the source materials with which they deal are
condensed in form and content. English history is
even better fitted for such elementary instruction.
The sources are easily accessible, most of them can be

used in the original language, and they are so diverse

in form that the student gets a far better opinion of the character of historical materials than he can in either ancient or medieval history. Secondly, the information imparted in the freshman course in history ought to be sufficiently extensive to form a good, solid foundation for any general course in another field or any advanced course in the same field of history. In this respect general history and English history alone qualify. English history, however, is really general history applied to a restricted geographical area. It adapts itself readily as a foundation course for ancient history, to which it is connected by the prehistoric remains, by the contact with the Greek colony of Marseilles and by the conquest of the Caesars. The connection between England and the continent is even closer in medieval and modern times, and the institutions and movements of the latter are reflected in the former. For American history, English history as a background is absolutely essential. In all respects, therefore, English history is as well suited for a foundation course as is general history. The first year course in history, furthermore, ought to give the student both a general conception of history as a whole, and a somewhat detailed knowledge of one of its divisions. The majority of students take no more than one course in history, and they take that for “general culture" as they call it. What they want is information, condensed in form, general in its nature, covering the whole field of history. General history, nevertheless, is too extensive. The student loses the thread of unity. and becomes hopelessly confused by a superficial study of innumerable movements and institutions, none of which he really understands. English history, on the other hand, is not open to these objections. It presents a general survey of history as a whole, and at the same time develops the history of a particular area with some detail. It is neither too general nor too technical.

Moreover, the freshman course in history ought to be selected with some regard to the recommendations of other departments and schools. Ancient history has the approval of the classical departments, but it can be taken as advantageously in the sophomore year as in the freshman. English history in many institutions is recommended or prescribed by the schools of law or commerce. Students in these schools begin to specialize in the second year. Consequently, the logical place for history in their programs is in the first year.

Lastly, the first year course in history ought to emphasize by its content the relation between the high school and the university. There seems, however, to be no definite connection between the number of courses in history a student has had in the high school and the proficiency he displays in the same subject in the university as measured by grades. On the basis of statistics, covering the grades of first year students for five years at the University of Texas, the student with three high school history courses does almost as well as the student with four courses, but not as well as the student with two courses who has the best record of all. The number of passes for four-course students is approximately seventy per cent. ; for three-course students, sixty-nine per cent.; and for two-course students, seventy-two per cent. There is, however, a marked difference between these groups and the two groups comprising those students who have received entrance credit for but one course in history or for none at all. Of the 2,475 students examined, 452 had received no entrance credit in history and 18 had received credit for only one course. Of these two groups, 53 per cent., barely half, succeeded in passing the first year history course in the university. This failure cannot be attributed alone, however, to the fact that they had had little or no history in a high school of good standing; nor can it be argued that four courses in history give the student a certain pedagogical form as a result of which he will do better in university history than the student who has had but one course. The 452 students are students who entered the university on individual approval, without extrance examination or high school diploma. They are poorly prepared in everything. They have as much difficulty with their other courses as they have with history. A large part of this group withdraws from the university shortly after admission. The data for those students who have had but one course in history are insufficient to permit any conclusion. University history teachers agree, however, that the less attention given to any field of history in the high school, the better will be the claim of that field to recognition in the first year university curriculum. An examination of 2,475 students in the University of Texas who enrolled in freshman history between 1911 and 1916, showed that 1,979, or 80 per cent., had had ancient history in the high school; 1,911, or

77 per cent., medieval and modern; 1,886, or 56 per

cent., American, and only 946, or 38 per cent., English. Four-fifths had had ancient, three-fourths medieval and modern, almost three-fifths American,

but only a little more than a third English. If high school history work really counts for anything, and if conditions elsewhere approximate those in Texas, then duplication can be avoided for two-thirds of the students entering the university each year, by offering English history as the first year course. In view of these facts, the writer has arrived at the conclusion that the same field ought to be offered as a first year course for all students, and that that field ought to be English history.



I have been looking in vain for a representative of the small college to appear on this program—for the man who has not only to teach freshmen, but has to teach sophomores, juniors and seniors as well. I am situated just that way; yet I have been able to do two of the things mentioned here this afternoon as being impracticable. First, I do not give all my first-year students the same course of study, regardless of preparation. I have about 75 students taking first-year history. These I have sectioned in this way: Those who have not had medieval history in the high school I put into a section which I start with the medieval period and hurry them through both medieval and modern history to the fall of Napoleon in one semester. Those who have had medieval his— tory in high school I start with the sixteenth century and proceed more intensively. This year we began with 1500 A. D., using Professor Hayes' book—one semester through the Napoleonic period. During the second semester the two sections will be pursuing the same work, namely, the period from the Congress of Vienna to the present time. The second thing I have been able to do is to use with freshmen classes such parallel source-studies as have been published. I devote one hour per week to this work. A good deal of the material is worked over in class, but the student has to finish the task by himself. I believe that the work has paid; at least, that is what those who have done the work with me have said. The students are able to work out these problems, and when they have constructed a historical narrative—more or less crude, of course, but their own— they take a good deal of pride in it. They have learned some of the principles of historical criticism, and as one student said recently, “Something of the immense task it is to write true history.” I think this is worth while. I would like to have some one else talk from the point of view of the small college man.

II. The Method

THE METHOD OF THE ELEMENTARY COURSE IN COLLEGE HISTORY. By Robert H. GEORGE, YALE UNIVERSITY. At the very outset, let me voice my belief that there is grave danger of being too didactic in the enunciation of the theories of method. It is my opinion that the

« ПретходнаНастави »