lem clearly in mind in order that they may more easily grasp the main points developed during the recitation period. than that of teacher-the average for the eleven reci- minutes she is talking, there would be some justifica- SUGGESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR CONDUCTING. The writer has found from experience in conducting practice teaching in high school history that it is necessary to furnish the pupil-teacher with rather specific direction concerning the planning, conducting, and managing of a recitation. The following is a copy of some suggestions and directions for conducting a recitation in high school history that have been used in this connection with gratifying results.. SOME SUGGESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR CONDUCTING I. Type of recitation. 1. History recitations may assume various forms. Determine in advance the form you are to use and make your plans accordingly. 2. The form of the recitation will determine the amount of time you yourself will consume. Keep this in mind and do not rob the pupils of time legitimately theirs. II. Review of the previous lesson. 1. Determine just what points in the previous lesson or lessons you wish to review. Indicate these under method of procedure in your lesson plan. 2. Have in mind just how much time you intend to give to the previous lesson or lessons, to the new lesson, and to the assignments of next day's lesson. Make a practice of adhering to this schedule rather rigidly. III. The new lesson. 1. Determine how it is to be introduced. Keep in mind its relation to the previous lesson or lessons. 2. Type of question: Attempt to keep a reasonable proportion of thought and memory questions. Avoid too many direct questions. Guard yourself against the use of double, triple, and a cumbersome wording of ordinary questions. Better write out six or eight leading questions in advance. Let them appear under method of procedure in your lesson plan. 3. The amount of talking and explaining done by the teacher will usually be small in comparison to that done by the pupils. 4. Each lesson will ordinarily have a leading problem. Pupils should have the main prob 5. A summary at the close of each lesson as well as at the conclusion of a series of lessons is usually worth while. Keep these in mind. 1. Specific directions will always be given for the study of the new lesson. Often some will need to be given for the review of the previous lesson or lessons. 2. Allow yourself ample time for this phase of the work. Be sure that the pupils understand what is demanded of them and later see that they come up to these demands according to their best ability. 3. Collateral reading should be carefully assigned. One good way to do this is to make out cards and post them in the library. Assignments of special topics may be given either in class or placed on slips and passed out to individual pupils. V. General management. 1. Maps, diagrams, pictures and other illustrative materials should be in constant use. Those for the day's lesson must be arranged before the recitation begins. 2. Attention and interest must be kept up. A sign of both is voluntary discussion, questions and objections. When these are lacking the cause must be sought, and some remedy applied. 3. Dull, diffident or unprepared members of the class must not be neglected. Special methods may need to be devised for these. 4. Careful attention must always be given by the teacher to mistakes in English on the part of the students. The teacher's own grammar and pronunciation may need some attention. DIRECTIONS FOR OBSERVING. It is more or less a waste of time to send or take prospective history teachers to visit a history recitation without very definite directions concerning what to observe and note. Even with definite direction the value of such work is often questioned. To obviate this objection, a plan has been devised at the University of Wisconsin High School to make pupilteachers out of those who formerly did nothing but observe. Under this scheme the prospective teacher is expected to be always ready to do the next thing in the recitation in which she is participating as a pupilteacher. This next thing may be either to recite or teach as the regular teacher directs. Whatever the virtues of the Wisconsin plan may prove to be, many of us who have to do with the training of high school history teachers will have to continue to have them observe in the old way. If results proportionate to the time spent in this work are attained, some very definite instructions and directions must be given the observers. The writer uses two methods to make this work definite. One is to simply ask each member of the observing group to take down, if possible, everything that is done by the DIRECTIONS FOR OBSERVATION WORK IN HIGH Was I. Review of the previous lesson or lessons. 2. What points in the previous lesson were par- 3. How much of the period was given up to the review? II. The new lesson. 1. What relation did the new lesson have to the previous one? work? Was there a definite and economical assignment of reference work? Were notes on reading required? Did pupils make contributions from their individual readings? 7. Notebook and illustrative materials: Were notebooks required? Character of exercises? Character, amount and use made of maps, pictures, charts, diagrams, etc.? 8. Summary: How was summary made at the close of the lesson? Did it touch on vital points? III. The assignment. 1. Was care taken in making the assignment? Did it include work for review of previous lesson or lessons as well as the new lesson? Did it provide definite problems so that the pupils understood exactly what they were expected to do? Any special attempt to arouse interest in the assignment work? Any anticipation of difficulties by the teacher? Any preliminary treatment by lecture or conversation? Any supervised study? How much? How organized? 2. What special forms did the assignment take? (a) problems; (b) topics; (c) detailed questions; (d) pages? Was collateral reading assigned? How and how much? How much time was given to the assignment? 2. Questioning: Did questions call for thought IV. Some general phases of the recitation. as well as facts? Did all pupils feel respon sible for every question? Were the questions 3. Note the relative amount of talking by the 4. Incentives, motives, interest and attention: How was attention or interest shown by the class (voluntary discussion, questions, objeсtions, etc.)? If interest and attention were lacking, explain the cause. If pupils were interested, was their interest due to the subject-matter itself, the teacher's personality, or to tricks and devices in method? 5. Leading problem or problems in the new lesson: What were the main points made in developing the problem or problems? Were text-books used? One or several? Did the recitation on the text-book material consist of a repetition of the text, explanation of difficulties, interpretations, amplification, or supplementing, or criticizing? 6. Management of the collateral work: Were reference books used? How, primary sources of information or training in library as 2. Lecturing: Did the teacher contribute anything by lecturing? How much? Formal or informal? Justified? Did the pupils take notes? 3. Principles and qualities: Were the principles of unity, proportion and coherence applied in the lesson? Did it contain the qualities of clearness, force and fine adaptation? The various phases of the high school history recitation considered in the foregoing discussion are all important factors in the technique of good history teaching. In time the good teacher will apply most of them unconsciously. Born teachers may be able to apply them from the very beginning. But since the supply of born teachers is never equal to the demand, we shall have to continue to make up the deficiency. One important phase of this making is the mastery of the technique of the recitation by those in the making. It is the business of departments having to do with the training of high school history teachers to see that their output has this important training, and the professional duty of principals and supervisor to see that this training really. functions in actual practice. Testing the Efficiency of Teachers and Librarians Through the courtesy of Dr. William H. Allen, Director of the Institute for Public Service (51 Chambers street, New York City), the MAGAZINE is permitted to publish the "Wisconsin Library Score Card," which appears on this and the following page. While the card contains a number of points applicable to librarians only, it is valuable in many ways for the school teacher and the school administrator. To the teacher it indicates the elements of personality and professional training which make for success or failure. For the administrator it furnishes a guide for an honest estimate of the teacher's work. Teachers themselves will do well to study the card carefully and determine their own points of excellence or deficiency. After all, few things are so valuable for the teacher as the ability to stand off from one's self and inspect one's own work as though it were the work of another. WISCONSIN LIBRARY SCORE CARD ON FIELD WORK Personality (check grade for each point so far as observed) How do you rank student's work in the following: (Check grade for work done) Collecting fines: fai excellent good inefficient Keeping statistics: excellent good fair inaccurate Mechanical work: excellent good fair helpless Accessioning: excellent good fair poor Classification: excellent good fair poor Cataloguing: excellent good fair poor Alphabeting: excellent good fair poor Reference: excellent good fair poor Book selection: excellent good fair poor Story telling: excellent good fair poor Publicity: excellent good fair poor Work with schools: excellent good fair poor Mending: excellent good fair poor Preparation for bindery: excellent good fair poor Picture work: excellent good fair poor Inventory: excellent good fair poor Typewriting: excellent good fair poor Library hand: excellent good fair poor WISCONSIN LIBRARY SCORE CARD (Continued) Good points that will make for student's success (check or underscore all that may apply) Weak points that will make for student's failure (check or underscore any that may apply) whether the presence of this student has been of any benefit to your library Please state frankly Normal School Relation to High School Teaching REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF MISSISSIPPI VALLEY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION PRESENTED AT At the annual meeting of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association held at Omaha in May, 1913, the Committee on Certification of High School Teachers of History, in the report which they submitted at that time, recommended among other things that a special committee be appointed to consider the place of the normal school in preparing high school history teachers. The recommendation was acted upon favorably by the executive committee of this association, and President James A. James appointed the following normal school men and women to serve as a special committee on the place of the normal school in the preparation of high school history teachers: E. M. Violette, Kirksville, Mo., chairman; Sara M. Riggs, Cedar Falls, Ia.; Pelagius M. Williams, Emporia, Kan.; Edward C. Page, DeKalb, Ill.; S. E. Thomas, Charleston, Ill.; Carl E. Pray, Ypsilanti, Mich. This committee at once drafted a questionnaire and sent it to the 150 normal schools of the country that are supported in part or wholly by State funds. It was not sent to city normal schools nor to normal schools for Negro teachers. By dint of persistent effort the committee succeeded in getting returns from 97 of the 150 schools to which the questionnaire was sent. These 97 schools are lo cated in 40 different States. Their distribution among the States is as follows: Alabama, 2; Arkansas, 1; Arizona, 1; California, 5; Colorado, 2; Connecticut, 2; Georgia, 1; Idaho, 1; Indiana, 1; Illinois, 5; Iowa, 1; Kansas, 3; Kentucky, 1; Missouri, 4; Minnesota, 5; Maine, 1; Massachusetts, 7; Michigan, 3; Maryland, 1; New York, 7; New Hampshire, 2; North Dakota, 1; New Mexico, 1; Nebraska, 2; New Jersey, 1; North Carolina, 1; Oregon, 1; Ohio, 2; Oklahoma, 4; Pennsylvania, 7; Rhode Island, 1; South Carolina, 1; South Dakota, 3; Texas, 2; Tennessee, 1; Vermont, 2; Virginia, 1; West Virginia, 4; Washington, 1; Wisconsin, 5. From an examination of the returns it was readily discovered that the normal schools of the country might be divided into three groups; first, those that confine themselves wholly to the preparation of elementary school teachers; second, those that give practically their entire attention to the preparation of elementary school teachers and prepare high school teachers only incidentally; third, those that make a distinct effort to prepare high school teachers as well as elementary school teachers. It was also found that the 97 schools that responded to the questionnaire were divided almost evenly among these three groups, 31 in the first group, 33 in the second, and 33 in the third. The geographical distribution of the 97 schools in these three groups is as follows: I. The 31 schools reporting that they are confining themselves wholly to the preparation of elementary school teachers, represent 13 different States. The number of such schools in each of these 13 States is as follows: California, 5; Connecticut, 2; Colorado, 1; Idaho, 1; Massachusetts, 7; Minnesota, 5; New York, 2; New Hampshire, 2; North Dakota, 1; Oregon, 1; Ohio, 1; Rhode Island, 1; Vermont, 2. The normal schools in California, Minnesota and Vermont are compelled by law to confine themselves to the work of preparing teachers for the elementary schools. Of these 31 schools, 7 are in 3 Mississippi Valley States, Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio; 16 are in 6 Eastern States, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; 8 are in 4 Western States, California, Colorado, Idaho and Oregon. II. The 33 schools reporting that they are giving practically their entire attention to the preparation of elementary school teachers and are preparing high school teachers only incidentally, represent 16 States. The number of such schools in each of these 16 States is as follows: Alabama, 2; Arkansas, 1; Arizona, 1; Georgia, 1; Illinois, 3; Maryland, 1; Michigan, 1; Maine, 1; New York, 4; New Mexico, 1; New Jersey, 1; Pennsylvania, 7; South Dakota, 3; Virginia, 1; Washington, 1; West Virginia, 4. Of these 33 schools, 8 are in 4 Mississippi Valley States, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, and South Dakota; 22 are in 9 Eastern States, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; 3 are in 3 Western States, Arizona, New Mexico and Washington. III. The 33 schools reporting that they make a definite effort to prepare high school teachers as well as elementary school teachers, represent 17 States. The number of such schools in each of these 17 States is as follows: Colorado, 1; Iowa, 1; Indiana, 1; Illinois, 2; Kentucky, 1; Kansas, 3; Missouri, 4; Michigan, 2; New York, 1; Nebraska, 2; North Carolina, 1; Oklahoma, 4; Ohio, 1; South Carolina, 1; Texas, 2; Tennessee, 1; Wisconsin, 5. Of these 33 schools, 29 are in 13 Mississippi Valley States, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, Wisconsin; 3 are in 3 Eastern States, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina; 1 is in 1 Western State, Colorado. From this tabulation it is readily seen that groups 1 and 2 are made up largely of the normal schools in the Eastern and Western States and that group 3 is almost altogether made up of the normal schools in the Mississippi Valley. In other words the normal schools of the Eastern and Western States are given largely to the work of preparing elementary school teachers. while the normal schools of the Mississippi Valley are undertaking to prepare high school teachers as well as elementary school teachers. It may be assumed that if the returns had been received from all of the 150 schools to which the questionnaire was sent, the proportionate distribution of the 150 among the three groups would be about the same as it is in the case of the 97 schools. The marked variations among normal schools as regards this one matter is suggestive of the fundamental differences that exist among these institutions, and of the difficulty of giving a definition of a normal school that will apply to them all. The definition of a college has long been agreed upon. A college must have a certain amount of endowment or fixed support; it must have a faculty of at least a certain number and an equipment of a certain character; it must require of its students a certain amount of work, usually 120 semester hours during a period of four years. Every institution that purports to be a college can be readily measured by the standards that have been widely accepted. But this is not the case with normal schools because there are so many different kinds of normal schools and because there is no agreement among normal school authorities as to what the standards: should be for such institutions. A few normal schools. are virtually high schools with a department of education or pedagogy attached; such schools constitute one extreme type. A few are attempting to offer a four years teachers college course beyond the four years high school course; they constitute the other extreme type. The majority of them however fall between these two extremes and are undertaking to do. two or three years of teachers college work beyond the four years high school course. Moreover most of the normal schools have large preparatory departments covering or paralleling the entire high school course. Since therefore there is no agreement among educational authorities as to the definition of a normal school and since there is no uniformity among normal schools as regards their standards and requirements,. it follows that the problem before this committee is a very complicated one. Fortunately however the problem is somewhat simplified by the fact that fully one third of the normal schools of the country confine their efforts exclusively to the preparation of elementary school teachers, and another third give practically all their energy to the same work and prepare high school teachers only incidentally. With two thirds of the normal schools thus eliminated from our survey, the question before the committee resolves itself into this form: 1. What preparation should be made by high school history teachers for their work? 2. To what extent do those normal schools that definitely undertake to prepare history teachers for high schools succeed in giving their students the prepara tion that conforms to the standards which this com-mittee approves? |