College Teaching Part 25

Footnotes:

[15] See article by Charles E. Persons, on Teaching the Introductory Course in Economics, in _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ Vol. x.x.xI, November, 1916, for a strong presentation of this civic ideal in economic study.

[16] Compiled by the writer from data in the report of the committee appointed by the conference on the teaching of elementary economics, 1909; _Journal of Political Economy_, November, 1911, Vol. 19, pages 760-789.

[17] See page 767 of the committee report cited above.

[18] Evidently it is not possible to draw from these data any definite conclusions as to the proportion of students beginning economics in each of the four years respectively. But probably three-fourths of all, possibly four-fifths, take the general course either in the soph.o.m.ore or the junior year. Most of the inst.i.tutions giving economics only in the senior year are small, with a very restricted curriculum, often limited to one general course. But it is a widely observed fact that many students in large inst.i.tutions postpone the election of the subject till their senior year.

[19] Of this see further below, page 226.

[20] Article cited, _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol. 19, page 768.

[21] The society for the Promotion of Engineering Education has had a standing committee on economics, since 1915. The first committee was composed of three engineers (all of them consulting and in practice and two of them also teachers) and the present writer.

[22] In Amherst, as described in _Journal of Political Economy_ by Professor W. H. Hamilton, on "The Amherst Program in Economics"; and in Chicago University beginning in 1916. See also, by the same writer, a paper on "The Inst.i.tutional Approach to Economic Theory", in the _American Economic Review_, Supplement, page 309, March, 1919.

[23] At the meeting of the American Economic a.s.sociation in 1897, at which was discussed "The Relation of the Teaching of Economic History to the Teaching of Political Economy," the opinion was expressed by one teacher that economic history should follow the general course.

But all the others agreed that such a course should begin the sequence, and this seems to be the almost invariable practice. See _Economic Studies_, Volume III. pages 88-101, Publications of the American Economic a.s.sociation, 1898.

[24] This plan has at various times been followed at Stanford, Cornell, Harvard, and Princeton, to cite only a few of the numerous examples.

[25] In this plan the sections are small (three to seven students) and the preceptor is expected to give much time to the personal supervision of the student's reading, reports, and general scholarship. The preceptorial work is rated at more than half of the entire work of the term. The one great difficulty of the preceptorial system is its cost.

[26] A strong plea is made for the "retirement of the lectures" by C.

E. Persons, in the _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, Vol. x.x.xI, "Teaching the Introductory Course in Economics," November, 1916, pages 96-98.

[27] Professor J. H. Hollander, _American Economic Review_, Vol. VI, No. 1, Supplement (March, 1916), page 135. See dissenting opinions in the discussion that followed.

[28] Professor C. E. Persons (art. cited page 86, November, 1916) gives the t.i.tles of ten separate books or pamphlets of this kind; since which date have appeared the author's "Manual of References and Exercises," Parts I and II, to accompany _Economic Principles_, 1915, and _Modern Economic Problems_, 1916, respectively.

[29] Among those most elaborately developing this method has been Professor F. M. Taylor of the University of Michigan. See his paper on the subject and discussion in the _Journal of Political Economy_, Vol.

VII, pages 688-703 (December, 1909). Marshall, Wright, and Field published the _Outline of Economics_, developed as a series of problems in 1910, which they used for a time as the main tool of instruction in the introductory course in Chicago University.

[30] A thoughtful discussion of some phases of this problem is given by Persons, art. cited, pages 98 ff., favoring the more positive treatment with less distracting multiplicity of detail.

[31] To a former student of mine and now a successful teacher, Dean J.

R. Turner of New York University, I am indebted for the suggestion of the following practical rules, a few among many possible, which should be helpful to younger teachers:

(_a_) Keep the student expecting a surprise, afraid to relax attention for fear of missing something.

(_b_) By Socratic method lead him into error, then have him (under cross fire and criticism of cla.s.s) reason his way out.

(_c_) Make fallacious argument, then call for criticism giving distinction to him who renders best judgment.

(_d_) Set tasks and have members of cla.s.s compete in intellectual contests.

(_e_) Make sure that each principle learned is seen in its relationship to practical affairs.

(_f_) Enliven each dry principle with an anecdote or ill.u.s.tration to elucidate it, for principles devoid of interesting features cannot secure attention and so will not be remembered.

(_g_) Accompany the discussion with charts and board work to visualize facts and questions to stimulate thought.

(_h_) Ask questions and so handle the cla.s.s discussions that a few will not do all the talking, that foreign subject matter is not introduced, that a consistent and logical development of thought is strictly adhered to.

(_i_) The last few minutes of the period might well be devoted to the a.s.signment for the next meeting. The best manner of a.s.signment must depend upon the nature of task, the advancement of the student, the purpose in view.

[32] An interesting study made by the department of education of Harvard University of the teaching methods and results in the department of economics was referred to in President Lowell's report.

According to the answers of the alumni their work in economics is now valued mainly for its civic and disciplinary results (these do not seem to have been further distinguished). In the introductory course reading was ranked first, cla.s.s work next, and lectures least, in value. In the advanced courses the lecture was ranked higher and cla.s.s work lower, but that may be because the lecture plays a more important role there than in the lower cla.s.ses. Answers regarding such matters are at most significant as indicating the relative importance of the various methods as they have actually been employed in the particular inst.i.tution, and have little validity in reference to the work and methods of other teachers working under other conditions, and with students having different life aims.

[33] The typical att.i.tude of many economists is expressed about as follows: It is one thing to give a.s.sent to refinements when they are used in the discussion of some single point of theory, and it is quite another thing to accept them when one sees how, in their combined effect, they would carry us away from "the old familiar moorings."

Such a view, it need not be urged, reflects an unscientific state of mind. The real cause of the rejection of the ideas probably is the shrinking of over-busy men, in middle life, and absorbed in teaching and in special problems, from the intellectual task of restudying the fundamentals and revising many of their earlier formed opinions--to say nothing of rewriting many of their old lectures and ma.n.u.scripts.

XI

THE TEACHING OF SOCIOLOGY

=Growth of sociology as a college subject=

The teaching of sociology as a definite college subject in the United States began at Yale nearly forty-five years ago. Since 1873 it has been introduced into nearly 200 American colleges, universities, normal schools, and seminaries. A study of this teaching in 1910 revealed over 700 courses offered to over 8000 undergraduates and 1100 graduate students. It is safe to a.s.sume a steady growth during the last six years. Hence the problem of teaching is of no little concern to sociologists. The American Sociological Society early recognized this fact and in 1909 appointed a Committee of Ten to report on certain aspects of the problem. But that all teachers of sociology have not grasped the bearing of pedagogy upon their work is clear from complaints still heard from students that sociology is vague, indefinite, abstract, dull, or scattered. Not long ago some bright members of a cla.s.s were overheard declaring that their professor must have been struck by a gust of wind which scattered his notes every day before getting to his desk.

=The pedagogy of sociology the pedagogy of all college subjects=

Sociology is simply a way of looking at the same world of reality which every other science looks at in its own way. It cannot therefore depart far from the pedagogical principles tried out in teaching other subjects. It must utilize the psychology of attention, interest, drill, the problem method, procedure from the student's known to the new, etc. The universal pitfalls have been charted for all teachers by the educational psychologists. In addition, sociology may offer a few on its own account, partly because it is new, partly because a general agreement as to the content of fundamentals in sociology courses is just beginning to make itself felt, partly because there is so far no really good textbook available as a guide to the beginner.

=Methods of teaching sociology determined by a complex of vital factors=

Specific methods of teaching vary according to individual temperament, the "set" of the teacher's mind; according to his bias of cla.s.s, birth, or training; according to whether he has been formed or deformed by some strong personality whose disciple he has become; according to whether he is a radical or a conservative; according to whether he is the dreamy, idealistic type or whether he hankers after concrete facts; according to whether sociology is a primary interest or only an incidental, more or less unwelcome.

Hence part of the difficulty, though by no means all, comes from the fact that sociology is frequently expounded by men who have received no specific training themselves in the subject, or who have had the subject thrust upon them as a side issue. In this connection it is interesting to note that in 1910 sociology was "given" in only 20 cases by sociology departments, in 63 by combinations of economics, history, and politics, in 11 by philosophy and psychology, in 2 by economics and applied Christianity or theology, in 1 by practical theology!

=Guiding principles in the teaching of sociology--The teacher as keen a.n.a.lyst, not revivalist=

Whatever the path which led into the sociological field or whatever the bias of temperament, experience justifies several preliminary hints for successful teaching. First, avoid the voice, the yearning manner, and the gesture of the preacher. Sociology needs the cool-headed a.n.a.lyst rather than the social revivalist. Let the sentimentalist and the muck-raker stay with their lecture circuits and the newspapers. The student wants enthusiasm and inspiration rather than sentimentality.

=Avoiding the formal lecture=

Second, renounce the lecture, particularly with young students. There is no surer method of blighting the interest of students, of murdering their minds, and of ossifying the instructor than to persist in the pernicious habit of the formal lecture. Some men plead large cla.s.ses in excuse. If they were honest with themselves they would usually find that they like large cla.s.ses as a subtle sort of compliment to themselves. Given the opportunity to break up a cla.s.s of two hundred into small discussion groups they would frequently refuse, on the score that they would lose a fine opportunity to influence a large group. Dodge it as you will, the lecture is and will continue to be an unsatisfactory, even vicious, way of attempting to teach social science. No reputable university tries to teach economics or politics nowadays in huge lecture sections. Only an abnormal conceit or abysmal poverty will prevent sociology departments from doing likewise.

Remember that education is always an exchange, never a free gift.

=Adjusting instruction to the capacities of your students=

Third, do not be afraid to utilize commonplace facts and ill.u.s.trations. A successful professor of sociology writes me that he can remember that what are mere commonplaces now were revelations to him at twenty-one. Two of the greatest teachers of the nineteenth century, Faraday and Huxley, attributed their success to the simple maxim, take nothing for granted. It is safe to a.s.sume that most students come from homes where business and petty neighborhood doings are the chief concern, and where a broad, well-informed outlook on life is rare. Since so many of my colleagues insist that young Ph.D.'s tend constantly to "shoot over the heads" of their students, the best way of avoiding this particular pitfall seems to lie along the road of simple, elementary, concrete fact. The discussion method in the cla.s.sroom will soon put the instructor right if he has gone to the other extreme of depreciating his students through kindergarten methods. Likewise he can guard against being oracular and pedantic by letting out his superior stores of information through free discussion in the Socratic fashion. Nothing is more important to good teaching than the knack of apt ill.u.s.tration. While to a certain extent it can be taught, just as the art of telling a humorous story or making a presentation speech can be communicated by teachers of oral English, yet in the long run it is rather a matter of spontaneous upwellings from a well-stored mind. For example, suppose a cla.s.s is studying the factors of variation and selection in social evolution: the instructor shows how Nature loves averages, not only by statistics and experiments with the standard curve of distribution, but also, if he is a really illuminated teacher, by reference, say, to the legend of David and Goliath, the fairy tale of _Little One-Eye, Little Two-Eye, Little Three-Eye_, and Lincoln's famous aphorism to the effect that the Lord must love the common people because he made so many of them.