is better than learning the meanings of words. Whether for intellectual, moral, or religious training, the study of surrounding phenomena is immensely superior to the study of grammars and lexicons. Thus to the question with which we set out - What knowledge is of most worth? - the uniform reply is Science. This is the verdict on all the counts. For direct self-preservation, or the maintenance of life and health, the all-important knowledge is — Science. For that indirect self-preservation which we call gaining a livelihood, the knowledge of greatest value is-Science. For the due discharge of parental functions, the proper guidance is to be found only in - Science. For that interpretation of national life, past and present, without which the citizen cannot rightly regulate his conduct, the indispensable key is Science. Science. Alike for the most perfect production and highest enjoyment of art in all its forms, the needful preparation is still Science. And for purposes of discipline - intellectual, moral, religious the most efficient study is, once more ― Science. The question which at first seemed so perplexed, has become, in the course of our inquiry, comparatively simple. We have not to estimate the degrees of importance of different orders of human activity, and different studies as severally fitting us for them, since we find that the study of Science, in its most comprehensive meaning, is the best preparation for all these orders of activity. We have not to decide between the claims of knowledge of great though conventional value, and knowledge of less though intrinsic value; seeing that the knowledge which we find to be of most value in all other respects, is intrinsically most valuable; its worth is not dependent upon opinion, but is as fixed as is the relation of man to the surrounding world. Necessary and eternal as are its truths, all Science concerns all mankind for all time. Equally at present, and in the remotest future, must it be of incalculable importance for the regulation of their conduct that men should understand the science of life, physical, mental, and social, and that they should understand all other science as a key to the science of life. And yet the knowledge which is of such transcendent value is that which, in our age of boasted education, receives the least attention. While this which we call civilization could never have arisen had it not been for science, science forms scarcely an appreciable element in what men consider civilized training. Though to the progress of science we owe it that millions find support where once there was food only for thousands, yet of these millions but a few thousands pay any respect to that which has made their existence possible. Though this increasing knowledge of the properties and relations of things has not only enabled wandering tribes to grow into populous nations, but has given to the countless members of those populous nations comforts and pleasures which their naked ancestors never even conceived, or could have believed, yet is this kind of knowledge only now receiving a grudging recognition in our highest educational institutions. To the slowly growing acquaintance with the uniform co-existences and sequences of phenomena - to the establishment of invariable laws, we owe our emancipation from the grossest superstitions. But for science we should be still worshipping fetishes; or, with hecatombs of victims, propitiating diabolical deities. And yet this science, which, in place of the most degrading conceptions of things, has given us some insight to the grandeurs of creation, is written against in our theologies and frowned upon from our pulpits. Paraphrasing an Eastern fable, we may say that in the family of knowledges, Science is the household drudge, who, in obscurity, hides unrecognized perfections. To her has been committed all the work; by her skill, intelligence, and devotion, have all the conveniences and gratifications been obtained; and while ceaselessly occupied in ministering to the rest, she has been kept in the background, that her haughty sisters might flaunt their fripperies in the eyes of the world. The parallel holds yet further. For we are fast coming to the dénouement, when the positions will be changed; and while these haughty sisters sink into merited neglect, Science, proclaimed as highest alike in worth and beauty, will reign supreme. 364. The Old and the New Psychology contrasted (Dewey, John, “The Psychology of the Elementary Curriculum"; in The foremost American interpreter of the social and industrial changes of a century in terms of education has been Professor John Dewey. His work, both experimental and theoretical, has stated a new social psychology for the educational process. While at the University of Chicago he conducted an experimental elementary school, the important results of which were published in 1900, in nine monographs, under the title of The Elementary School Record. In the last of the series he contrasted the old and the new psychology, as it applies to the education of the child, in the following words: What, then, are the chief working hypotheses that have been adopted from psychology? What educational counterparts have been hit upon as in some degree in line with the adopted psychology? The discussion of these questions may be approached by pointing out a contrast between contemporary psychology and the psychology of former days. The contrast is a triple one. Earlier psychology regarded mind as a purely individual affair in direct and naked contact with an external world. The only question asked was of the ways in which the world and the mind acted upon each other. The en tire process recognized would have been in theory exactly the same if there were one mind living alone in the universe. At present the tendency is to conceive individual mind as a function of social life, as not capable of operating or developing by itself, but as requiring continual stimulus from social agencies, and finding its nutrition in social supplies. The idea of heredity has made familiar the notion that the equipment of the individual, mental as well as physical, is an inheritance from the race: a capital inherited by the individual from the past and held in trust by him for the future. The idea of evolution has made familiar the notion that mind cannot be regarded as an individual monopolistic possession, but represents the outworkings of the endeavor and thought of humanity; that it is developed in an environment which is social as well as physical, and that social needs and aims have been most potent in shaping it, that the chief difference between savagery and civilization is not in the naked nature which each faces, but the social heredity and social medium. In the second place, the older psychology was a psychology of knowledge, of intellect. Emotion and endeavor occupied but an incidental and derivative place. Much was said about sensations, — next to nothing about movements. There was discussion of ideas and of whether they originated in sensations or in some innate mental faculty; but the possibility of their origin in and from the needs of action was ignored. Their influence upon conduct, upon behavior, was regarded as an external attachment. The third point of contrast lies in the modern conception of the mind as essentially a process - a process of growth, not a fixed thing. According to the older view mind was mind, and that was the whole story. Mind was the same throughout, because fitted out with the same assortment of faculties, whether in child or adult. If any difference was made it was simply that some of these ready-made faculties - such as memory came into play at an earlier time, while others, such as judging and inferring, made their appearance only after the child, through memorizing drills, had been reduced to complete independence upon the thought of others. The only important difference that was recognized was one of quantity, of amount. The boy was a little man and his mind was a little mind, in everything but size the same as that of the adult, having its own ready-furnished equipment of faculties of attention, memory, etc. Now we believe in the mind as a growing affair, and hence as essentially changing, presenting distinctive phases of capacity and interest at different periods. These are all one and the same in the sense of continuity of life, but all different in that each has its own distinctive claims and offices. "First the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear." 365. Difficulties in Transforming the School Ping Wen Kuo, The Chinese System of Public Instruction, pp. 161-62. The transformation of a nation's schools from institutions for formal training in book knowledge to institutions which give real life experience and prepare for intelligent living in modern society has everywhere been difficult. The following description of the difficulties experienced recently in China gives a picture of conditions not particularly different from those in other lands. (a) Relating Education to Life There is at least one more educational problem of importance deserving special mention, namely, the problem of effectively relating education to the life of those who receive it. In the western countries the conflict so long waged between formal book training and the newer, more practical forms of education centering in the social and industrial needs of children, may be said to have been settled theoretically, at least, in favor of the latter, but in China the conflict has only just begun. For not until recent years has there been felt the need of bringing about a closer adjustment of school work to the changing social and industrial demands of the time, and of making the curriculum a means of preparing the pupils to solve the problems of their daily life. True enough, most of the modern school subjects, such as geography, civics, and the like, have been introduced into the regular course of study, but these subjects are often taught without much. reference to the daily life of the pupil or that of the community. As a result, a serious doubt has arisen in the minds of many of the Chinese as to the efficacy of modern education in solving the perplexing problems of the country. There is a feeling on the part of some that both the subjects taught in school and the method used in teaching those subjects do little good to the children. Indeed, a loud cry has already been raised against this form of education as failing to do what is expected of it. The charge is made that from the moment a child enters school, he begins to alienate himself from the life of the family and that of the community, and that by the time he graduates he is fit neither to be a farmer nor to be a merchant. This serious charge against new education, although it is not true of all schools, is yet not made without grounds. The root of the trouble lies, as already suggested, in the fact that much of the school work consists of merely imparting knowledge without reference either to the purposes which brought the children to school, or to the needs of the community in which they live. To remedy the evil something fundamental needs to be done, both in the selection of material for the curriculum and in the method of teaching the various subjects of study. Fortunate it is for the new republic that these two problems are beginning to receive the serious attention of her more progressive leaders in education. (b) The Old Teacher and the New System The facts that China went into this work of educating a quarter of the population of the globe without a sufficient body of teachers and that the growth of the new educational system has been probably more rapid than was anticipated, would not have made the problem of supplying teachers so serious had China been able to recruit teachers from the old schools. This she has not been able to do, although many of the old teaching staff did find their way into modern schools. Chinese scholars there were, and many of them too, but they lacked the knowledge and the skill demanded of the teachers of modern schools. Under the old educational system any one could set up as a school teacher, and a great many scholars who had attained the first degree in the examination, to say nothing of the host of others who had failed, made this their chief means of obtaining a living. No certificate was required for teaching, and no book or curriculum was compulsory, except that which was universally established by tradition or usage. The instruction was usually imparted either in the home of the children or in that of the teacher. Such private schools seldom comprised more than twenty children. The kind of teaching tended to develop memory rather than reasoning power. Under the new system of education, the situation which the teacher has to face is entirely different. He must know more than mere Chinese classics and composition. He has to teach students in classes instead of individually. Again, the teacher in a modern school is expected to develop in the pupils the power of reasoning, instead of only mere memory. And the old-time teacher does not easily lend himself to the new order. He is by training conservative, inclined to cling to the methods to which he is accustomed. He is himself so wedded to the old that he confesses to a sort of intellectual awkwardness when he tries to use the new learning and new methods. In his fear of making mistakes, he confines himself closely to textbooks. Consciously or unconsciously he still over-emphasizes the value of memory. He himself is not trained to think, and of course is not inclined to adopt methods which quicken thought in his student. Modern pedagogy is to him so new a science that either he has little appreciation of its worth, or, if he is able to appreciate, he is not able to use it with facility and efficiency. 366. Socialization of School Work illustrated by History (Dewey, John, "The Aim of History in Elementary Education"; in To illustrate how Professor Dewey attempted to socialize the elementary school subjects, the fellowing extract from his introduction to the monograph on History Teaching is given. |