CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER I
INDICATIONS
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE DO NOT LEARN TO STUDY PROPERLY; THE SERIOUSNESS OF
THE EVILNo
doubt every one can recall peculiar methods of study that he or some
one else has at some time followed. During my attendance at high
school I often studied aloud at home, along with several other
temporary or permanent members of the family. I remember becoming
exasperated at times by one of my girl companions. She not only read
her history aloud, but as she read she stopped to repeat each
sentence five times with great vigor. Although the din interfered
with my own work, I could not help but admire her endurance; for the
physical labor of mastering a lesson was certainly equal to that of a
good farm hand, for the same period of time.This
way of studying history seemed extremely ridiculous. But the method
pursued by myself and several others in beginning algebra at about
the same time was not greatly superior. Our text-book contained
several long sets of problems which were the terror of the class, and
scarcely one of which we were able to solve alone. We had several
friends, however, who could solve them, and, by calling upon them for
help, we obtained the "statement" for each one. All these
statements I memorized, and in that way I was able to "pass off"
the subject.A
few years later, when a school principal, I had a fifteen-year-old
boy in my school who was intolerably lazy. His ambition was
temporarily aroused, however, when he bought a new book and began the
study of history. He happened to be the first one called upon, in the
first recitation, and he started off finely. But soon he stopped, in
the middle of a sentence, and sat down. When I asked him what was the
matter, he simply replied that that was as far as he had got. Then,
on glancing at the book, I saw that he had been reproducing the text
verbatim, and the
last word that he had uttered was the last word on the first page.These
few examples suggest the extremes to which young people may go in
their methods of study. The first instance might illustrate the
muscular method of learning history; the second, the memoriter method
of reasoning in mathematics. I have never been able to imagine how
the boy, in the third case, went about his task; hence, I can suggest
no name for his method.While
these methods of study are ridiculous, I am not at all sure that they
are in a high degree exceptional.Collective
examples of studyThe
most extensive investigation of this subject has been made by Dr.
Lida B. Earhart,[Footnote:
Systematic Study in the Elementary Schools.
A popular form of this thesis, entitled
Teaching Children to Study,
is published in the Riverside Educational Monographs.] and the facts
that she has collected reveal a woeful ignorance of the whole subject
of study.Among
other tests, she assigned to eleven- and twelve-year-old children a
short selection from a text-book in geography, with the following
directions: "Here is a lesson from a book such as you use in
class. Do whatever you think you ought to do in studying this lesson
thoroughly, and then tell (write down) the different things you have
done in studying it. Do not write anything else." [Footnote:
Ibid., Chapter 4.]Out
of 842 children who took this test, only fourteen really found, or
stated that they had found, the subject of the lesson. Two others
said that they would
find it. Eighty-eight really found, or stated that they had found,
the most important parts of the lesson; twenty-one others, that they
would find them.
Four verified the statements in the text, and three others said that
they would
do that. Nine children did nothing; 158 "did not understand the
requirements"; 100 gave irrelevant answers; 119 merely
"thought," or "tried to understand the lesson,"
or "studied the lesson"; and 324 simply wrote the facts of
the lesson. In other words, 710 out of the 842 sixth- and seventh-
grade pupils who took the test gave indefinite and unsatisfactory
answers. This number showed that they had no clear knowledge of the
principal things to be done in mastering an ordinary text-book lesson
in geography. Yet the schools to which they belonged were, beyond
doubt, much above the average in the quality of their instruction.In
a later and different test, in which the children were asked to find
the subject of a certain lesson that was given to them, 301 out of
828 stated the subject fairly well. The remaining 527 gave only
partial, or indefinite, or irrelevant answers. Only 317 out of the
828 were able to discover the most important fact in the lesson. Yet
determining the subject and the leading facts are among the main
things that any one must do in mastering a topic. How they could have
been intelligent in their study in the past, therefore, is difficult
to comprehend.Teachers'
and parents complaints about methods of study.It
is, perhaps, unnecessary to collect proofs that young people do not
learn how to study, because teachers admit the fact very generally.
Indeed, it is one of the common subjects of complaint among teachers
in the elementary school, in the high school, and in the college. All
along the line teachers condole with one another over this evil,
college professors placing the blame on the instructors in the high
school, and the latter passing it down to teachers in the elementary
school. Parents who supervise their children's studies, or who
otherwise know about their habits of work, observe the same fact with
sorrow. It is at least refreshing to find one matter, in the much-
disputed field of education, on which teachers and parents are well
agreed.How
about the methods of study among teachers themselves? Unless they
have learned to study properly, young people cannot, of course, be
expected to acquire proper habits from them.
Method of study among teachers.
The most enlightening single experience I have ever had on this
question came several years ago in connection with a series of
lectures on Primary Education. A course of such lectures had been
arranged for me without my full knowledge, and I was unexpectedly
called upon to begin it before a class of some seventy-five teachers.
It was necessary to commence speaking without having definitely
determined my first point. I had, however, a few notes which I was
attempting to decipher and arrange, while talking as best I could,
when I became conscious of a slight clatter from all parts of the
room. On looking up I found that the noise came from the pencils of
my audience, and they were writing down my first pointless remarks.
Evidently discrimination in values was not in their program. They
call to mind a certain theological student who had been very
unsuccessful in taking notes from lectures. In order to prepare
himself, he spent one entire summer studying stenography. Even after
that, however, he was unsuccessful, because he could not write quite
fast enough to take down
all that was said.Even
more mature students often reveal very meager knowledge of methods of
study. I once had a class of some thirty persons, most of whom were
men twenty-five to thirty-five years of age, who were college
graduates and experienced teachers. One day I asked them, "When
has a book been read properly?" The first reply came from a
state university graduate and school superintendent, in the words,
"One has read a book properly when one understands what is in
it." Most of the others assented to this answer. But when they
were asked, "Is a person under any obligations to judge the
worth of the thought?" they divided, some saying yes, others no.
Then other questions arose, and the class as a whole soon appeared to
be quite at sea as to the proper method of reading books. Perhaps the
most interesting thing was the fact that they seemed never to have
thought seriously about the matter. Fortunately Dr. Earhart has not
overlooked teachers' methods of study in her investigations. In a
questionnaire that
was filled out by 165 teachers, the latter were requested to state
the principal things that ought to be done in "thinking about a
lesson." This was practically the same test as was given to the
842 children before mentioned. While at least twenty different things
were named by these teachers, the most frequent one was, "Finding
the most important points." [Footnote:
Ibid., Chapter 5.]
Yet only fifty-five out of the 165 included even this. Only
twenty-five, as Dr. Earhart says, "felt, keenly enough to
mention it, the necessity of finding the main thought or problem."
Forty admitted that they memorized more often than they did anything
else in their studying. Strange to say, a larger percentage of
children than of teachers mentioned finding the main thought, and
finding the more important facts, as two factors in mastering a
lesson. Water sometimes appears to rise higher than its source.About
two-thirds of these 165 teachers [Footnote:
Ibid., Chapter 5.]
declared that they had never received any systematic instruction
about how to study, and more than half of the remainder stated that
they were taught to memorize in studying. The number who had given
any careful instruction on proper methods of study to their own
pupils was insignificant. Yet these 165 teachers had had unusual
training on the whole, and most of them had taught several years in
elementary schools. If teachers are so poorly informed, and if they
are doing so little to instruct their pupils on this subject, how can
the latter be expected to know how to study?The
prevailing definition of study.The
prevailing definition of study gives further proof of a very meager
notion in regard to it. Frequently during the last few years I have
obtained from students in college, as well as from teachers, brief
statements of their idea of study. Fully nine out of every ten have
given memorizing as its nearest synonym.It
is true that teachers now and then insist that studying should
consist of thinking.
They even send children to their seats with the direction to "think,
think hard." But that does not usually signify much. A certain
college student, when urged to spend not less than an hour and a half
on each lesson, replied, "What would I do after the first twenty
minutes?" His idea evidently was that he could read each lesson
through and memorize its substance in that time. What more remained
to be done? Very few teachers, I find, are fluent in answering his
question. In practice, memorizing constitutes much the greater part
of study.The
very name recitation suggests this fact. If the school periods are to
be spent in reciting, or reproducing, what has been learned, the work
of preparation very naturally consists in storing the memory with the
facts that are to be required.
Thinking periods,
as a substitute name for recitation periods, suggests a radical
change, both in our employment of school time and in our method of
preparing lessons. We are not yet prepared for any such change of
name.The
literature dealing with method of study.Consider
finally the literature treating of study. Certainly there has never
been a period when there was a more general interest in education
than during the last twenty years, and the progress that has been
made in that time is remarkable. Our study of the social view- point,
of child nature, of apperception, interest, induction, deduction,
correlation, etc., has been rapidly revolutionizing the school,
securing a much more sympathetic government of young people, a new
curriculum, and far more effective methods of instruction. In
consequence, the injuries inflicted by the school are fewer and less
often fatal than formerly, while the benefits are more numerous and
more vital. But, in the vast quantity of valuable educational
literature that has been published, careful searching reveals only
two books in English, and none in German, on the "Art of Study."
Even these two are ordinary books on teaching, with an extraordinary
title.The
subject of memorizing has been well treated in some of our
psychologies, and has received attention in a few of the more recent
works on method. Various other problems pertaining to study have
also, of course, been considered more or less, in the past, in books
on method, in rhetorics, and in discussions of selection of reading
matter. In addition, there are a few short but notable essays on
study. There have been practically, however, only two books that
treat mainly of this subject,—the two small volumes by Dr. Earhart,
already mentioned, which have been very recently published. In the
main, the thoughts on this general subject that have got into print
have found expression merely as incidents in the treatment of other
themes—coming, strange to say, largely from men outside the
teaching profession—and are contained in scattered and forgotten
sources.Thus
it is evident not only that children and teachers are little
acquainted with proper methods of study, but that even sources of
information on the subject are strangely lacking.The
seriousness of such neglect is not to be overestimated. Wrong methods
of study, involving much unnecessary friction, prevent enjoyment of
school. This want of enjoyment results in much dawdling of time, a
meager quantity of knowledge, and a desire to quit school at the
first opportunity. The girl who adopted the muscular method of
learning history was reasonably bright. But she had to study very
"hard"; the results achieved in the way of marks often
brought tears; and, although she attended the high school several
years, she never finished the course. It should not be forgotten that
most of those who stop school in the elementary grades leave simply
because they want to, not because they must.Want
of enjoyment of school is likely to result, further, in distaste for
intellectual employment in general. Yet we know that any person who
amounts to much must do considerable thinking, and must even take
pleasure in it. Bad methods of study, therefore, easily become a
serious factor in adult life, acting as a great barrier to one's
growth and general usefulness.