ni5 tTeacbers College Contributions to Bbucation flo.X. Normal School Education and Efficiency in Teaching Junius Lathrop Meriam, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Education, University of Misso-ar: PUBUSHED BY TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY New York Ur6 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Denrs M. Sage 1S91 4,Ji /a.i'p^. .i^U-./m.op.... 7673-2 12 Cornell University Library LB1715 .M56 Normal school education and efficlen olin 3 1924 030 594 588 Cornell University Library The original of tinis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030594588 1 . NOEMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION AND EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, TEACHERS COLLEGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION NO. I NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION AND EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING BY JUNIUS LATHROP MERIAM, Ph. D. Adjunct Professor of Education, University of Missouri PUBLISHED BY ^eacbers College, Columbfa xantverstt^ NEW YORK 1906 MS' 6 CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE General introduction 9 CHAPTER II PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS Introduction : 1. The problem 12 2. Generalizations reacted 12 Present Requirements of Psychology in the Preparation of Teachers: 1. State Examinations 14 2. Colleges and Universities 17 3. Normal Schools 22 Development of the Idea that Psychology is Essential in the Training of Teachers: 1. Before Normal Schools took up this work 27 2. In the Normal Schools 31 (i) Early Schools 31 (2) Sixty Years of Normal Work 33 (3) Influence of the National Educational Association. 35 Coficlusion 36 CHAPTER III OPINIONS OF STUDENTS AS TO THE VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY Introduction : 1. The problem 38 2. Generalizations 41 Discussion on the Five Questions : 1. Aim in the Study 42 2. Portions of the Study Emphasized 43 3. Text-books Used 43 5 6 CONTENTS PAGE 4. Principles for Teaching 43 5. Psychology vs. Experience 45 Conclusion 49 CHAPTER IV ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP Introduction : 1. The problem Si 2. General Conclusions Reached 52 Method of Study : 1. Data Collected 55 2. Character of Data 57 3. Method of Securing Data 59 4. Method of Treatment 60 (i) Coefficients of Correlation 60 (2) Combining Schools 64 (3) Tables of Distribution 67 Interpretation and Discussion : 1. General Explanation of Tables and Tabular Views of Indices 68 2. General View of the Correlations 77 3. More Specific Considerations 78 (i) Teaching and Practice Teaching 78 (2) Teaching and " Professional " Studies 80 (3) "Methods" and "Academic" Work 81 (4) Civil Service Examinations 83 (5) Manual Arts 85 (6) Methods of Marking 86 Marks too high _ 87 Distribution eccentric 88 Grading by relative position 91 Wide range of distribution 92 Normal curve the standard 94 4. Samples of Grades 96 5. Sample Tables gg CHAPTER V GENERAL TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS Introduction : 1. The problem 104 2. Generalizations 104 CONTENTS 7 PAGE Method : 1 . Data collected los 2. Regrouping io6 Discussion of the Five Questions : 1. Grade in School 107 2. Experience in Teaching 108 3. Study in High School m 4. Study in College 112 5. Professional Study 114 CHAPTER VI THE INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS Introduction : 1. The problem 116 2. General Conclusions iiq 3. Data used 120 Degrees Held by Normal School Teachers : 1. Distribution of Degrees 120 1. In Normal Schools • 120 2. In Schools of Education 127 2. Colleges and Universities Represented by Degrees .... 130 Non-degree Instructors 132 Study oi one School 134 Summary and Conclusion 136 Supplementary Study ; 1. 49 State Normal Schools 139 2. Contributions to Pedagogical Literature by Normal School Teachers 147 Bibliography ; 151 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION AND EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The five studies here collected relate to the work of Nor- mal Schools as training institutions, and to the efficiency of teachers in the elementary schools. They all bear upon the problem of the relation between ability to teach and proficiency in previous study and training. There is room for much more emphasis upon limiting the work of the Normal Schools to the preparation of teachers for elementary schools, instead of attempting, as some do, to prepare superintendents and principals in town high schools, as well as special teachers in high schools. This is particularly true where such teachers, principals and super- intendents have had no more advanced education than that offered in our secondary schools. On the letter-heads used by one of these Normal School graduates a statement is made of the various courses of study and of the opportuni- ties offered in his school, after which are the words : " Col- lege preparatory work our specialty." Here is an illustra- tion of how the Normal Schools tend to place their graduates in secondary school positions, and how these teachers un- dertake work which cannot be efficiently done with so limited training. Such tendencies carry with them the implication that the 9 lO NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION elementary school does not present the real educational prob- lems found in the higher work. An educational institution is doing real work when it is delving into vital educational problems. If the elementary field did not oiifer such prob- lems, to enter the higher fields is of course advisable. The present studies may serve, however, to point out some prob- lems of the lower grades that need study. That scarcely any of such work is now done in the Normal Schools may find some explanation in one of the present studies, that on the instructors in the State Normal Schools of New York. The first study given here is of an historical nature, in- quiring briefly into the beginning and rise of the study of psychology in Normal Schools (confined here to the United States). It will be seen that the study of psychology has been a prominent factor in the curriculum from' the first, but that the nature of this work has been very general and even indefinite, and that its improvement has not kept pace with the advances of psychology itself. The second study is that of a questionnaire on the contri- bution made by Normal School psychology to efficiency in teaching. This is based wholly on the personal opinion of Normal School graduates now teaching, hence generaliza- tions can be made only provisionally. The evidence, direct and indirect, shows that the work of the schools in psychol- ogy is vague, loose, and in need of reconstruction. The third is a statistical study of the relations between teaching efficiency and scholarship in the various studies pursued by teachers in their Normal School course. This involves a study of 1,185 teachers, and about 25,000 indi- vidual records of scholarship. Here success in practice- teaching and in the study of psychology are found to be the largest contributors to efficiency in teaching. The study also suggests that the emphasis given to "Methods" is ill- placed; that subject-matter courses themselves take slightly INTRODUCTION II higher rank than such " Methods." Further, the study shows weakness in present methods of grading scholarship in school work. Another method is suggested. The fourth study deals very briefly with the general prep- aration of elementary teachers. After a year or so, ex- perience seems to contribute little, if any, to efficiency. That is, teachers with two years' experience have as high a rank as those with five, ten, or fifteen years' experience. More or less than a four-years' high school course makes no difference. College graduates are less successful in the lower grades. Professional work in Normal Schools does not contribute as much as one would expect, though Nor- mal School graduates do better than teachers trained in city training schools, and these in turn better than teachers with no pedagogical education at all. The fifth study inquires concerning the qualifications of the teachers in the State Normal Schools of New York. Only about one-fourth of these are college graduates, and one-third have never studied further than the Normal Schools in which they are teaching. This characteristic of the teaching stafifs is supported further by a detailed study of one of the schools throughout its history; also, by a study of forty-nine representative Normal Schools through- out the country, outside of New York; and lastly, by the slight contributions made to current pedagogical literature by Normal School teachers. The outline in the presentation of these studies is : 1. Introduction, stating— (i) The problem. (2) Tlie general conclusions. 2. Method of treating the study. 3. Details of the study. 4. Generalizations and conclusions, more in detail. CHAPTER II r ' I- psychology in the curriculum for teachers Introduction J. The Problem. What has decided the nature of the professional training qf teachers? The introduction and development of psy- chology is taken as a type for study. The subjects of study pursued by those preparing for the work of a teacher are, in the main, selected according to the personal opinion of those in charge, or are now used because of their traditional standing. No pedagogical cur- riculum has ever been worked out by scientific method; no scientific tests have ever been applied to the usual subjects in the curriculum to see what relative value they have in the preparation of the teacher. We have, therefore, only traditional standing and personal opinion to guide us. To point out what this opinion is (with reference to one sub- ject, psychology) and to show how opinion has developed in the preparation of the teacher in the elementary schools is the purpose of this chapter. 2. Generalisations Reached. The points of emphasis in this chapter may be seen in the following brief outline: I. The present requirements in the preparation of the teacher, with special reference to psychology. I. Examinations for state certificates ask for some knowledge of psychology in a majority of cases. 12 PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 13 2. Certificates to teach, given by colleges and uni- versities, make this same requirement, with but few exceptions. 3. Diplomas from State Normal Schools invariably require psychology. 2. The development of the idea that psychology is needed in courses for teachers. 1. Though the Normal School idea was first pre- sented in 1789, it was not until 1825 that open opinion was expressed in favor of the study of mind as essential for teachers. This contained no clear idea of the scope or content of psychol- ogy, but was a demand for the study of mental phenomena, so far as possible at that time. 2. Study in the philosophy of mind was present in all the early Normal Schools, due to the concep- tion that the science of education and the art of teaching were based on the philosophy of mind, but the great need of academic work in the com- mon branches made this subject secondary. 3. Its development from 1839 until recent years was very slow, and its content was very indefinite. Its character seems closely allied to moral phil- osophy. 4. Its more rapid development in some schools since about 1897 seems to be due, in part, to influence from the National Educational Association. This chapter assumes : I; That the Normal School is, at present, the leading in- stitution in the training of elementary teachers, and that the development of the idea that psychology is essential in the courses is representative of that of other subjects. 14 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 2. That the belief in the value of psychology — whatever be the truth or error in the idea — is based, not upon knowledge and measurement, but upon personal opin- ion and custom. 3. Tliat a better criterion for the worth of any subject in the curriculum for teachers is found in a statistical study ; and that in this study an approximation is made to a knowledge of the quantitative worth of any sub- ject in such courses. Present Requirements in Psychology for the Preparation of Teachers It may be safely said that teachers qualify for their posi- tions in one or more of three ways : 1. Certificates secured through state, county, or local ex- amination. 2. Certificates granted for work done in schools of edu- cation, as in colleges and universities. 3. Diplomas given in recognition of courses pursued in Normal Schools (here including City Training- Schools). The character of the work required as presented by these three methods indicates what is commonly regarded as essential in the equipment of a teacher. I. state examinations The state of New York issues three grades of certificates to teach. The lowest, or third grade, is a license to teach for one year. Examinations must be passed in the follow- ing subjects: American History, Arithmetic, Grammar, English Composition, Geography, Orthography, Penman- ship, Physiology and Hygiene, School Law, and Reading. The second grade certificate is a license for three years, granted upon the completion of ten weeks of experience in teaching and of examinations in the following subjects in PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 15 addition to those for the third grade: Civil Government, Current Topics, Drawing, Methods and School Manage- ment. The first grade certificate is a license for ten years, given upon the completion of two years of teaching experi- ence and the passing of examinations, in addition to those in the two grades above, in Algebra, Bookkeeping, History of Education, and Physics.^ Chapter 329 of the Acts of 1894 of the Massachusetts Legislature, approved April 28, 1894, directs that " the Board of Education shall cause to be held public examina- tions of candidates for the positions of teachers in the public schools of the Commonwealth. Such examinations shall test the professional as well as the scholastic abilities of the candidates." The Secretary of the Board states that the law has not been carried into effect, because of insufficient appropriation. " Tliis [permission to teach without examination] is in sympathy with the general Massachusetts spirit in things educational, a spirit that invites and tries to convince before it positively com- mands." ^ " The Massachusetts ideal is a system of state licensing whose standards shall be above those of the Nor- mal schools and colleges. . . . The system implies, for the present, a voluntary basis, since its standards are higher than could be maintained on a compulsory basis. It does not require the teacher to hold a state license or the school committee to demand it." ' Ohio grants two state certificates good for life: I . Common schools : Examinations are given in Orthog- raphy, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Algebra, Geography, English Grammar and Composition, History of the United 1 Report of State Superintendent of New York for 1902, pp. 167-169. 2 Report of Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1899-1900, p. 228. ^ Ibid., 1899-1900, p. 230. l6 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION States including Civil Government, General History, Eng- lish Literature, Physiology and Hygiene, Physics, Theory and Practice of Teaching, and Scientific Temperance. 2. High schools : In addition to the above, examinations in Geometry, Rhetoric, Civil Government, Latin, Psychol- ogy, History of Education, Science of Education. Also three branches from the following: Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Geology, Astronomy, Trigonometry, Logic, Greek, German, Political Economy.^ Illinois " grants two state certificates ; one for five years, the other for life. The former calls for examinations in the usual academic work; the latter increases the academic work, and adds " Pedagogy." Two state certificates are granted in Iowa,° High School and Elementary. Under the former "Graduates of the col- lege of liberal arts of the state university, who have pursued in addition to the course in psychology, a pedagogical course of at least one year . . . will be admitted to the examina- tions. . . . School Management, Elementary Psychology, and Methods of Instruction constitute the examination in this subject" (Didactics). An examination in the " Psy- chology of the Child " is required of elementary teachers. In Missouri, " all applicants for state certificates will be examined in . . . psychology." * The state report for 1904 makes psychology optional. In New Hampshire, " permanent certificates " require examinations in psychology and the history of education. In Michigan and Colorado, I find no mention of psychol- ogy in examinations. 1 Report, Commissioner of Common Schools, 1902, p. 19. ^ Report, Illinois Board of Education, 1900-1902, p. 29. " Report, Iowa Board of Education, 1902-1903, p. 140-142. * Report, Missouri State Superintendent of Schools, 1897, p. 24. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 17 These nine states may be taken as representative states, or better, as leading states. The importance of such data in this particular investigation does not call for a larger representation of states. Examinations for state certificates only have been con- sidered. It is well known that county, 'township, and local examinations vary much, but the probability is that such examinations are considerably directed by those for the state certificates. 2. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Consider, secondly, requirements in the various schools of education in colleges and universities. Teachers College of Columbia University offers a four years' course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education. The first two years' work is considered col- legiate, though arranged with a view to later professional work. Students in the Collegiate Course are required to take work during the freshman and sophomore years amounting to a total of thirty points. The courses necessary to meet these requirements may be chosen by the student at will — from those designated in the annual Announcement by letters and by the numbers i-g inclusive — subject to the approval of the Committee on Undergraduate Students, and according to the general regulations of the College and the following : Outline of Coukse (A) For all students: I — English A — Rhetoric and Composition — ^3 points. a — English 2 or 5 — Literature — 2 points. 3 — Biology and Physical Education 3 -i Physiology and Hygiene /^ P^'"*^- 4 — ^And courses amounting to 2 points in Fine Arts, Music, or Manual Training. l8 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION (B) Studeats who do not offer the folloiwing subjects at entrance must take in college the courses appearing opposite them (unless a more advanced course in the same department be elected), namely, Entrance Subjects. College Courses. I — German German A — 3 points. 2 — French French A — 3 points or German 2 — 3 points. 3 — Advanced Mathematics Mathematics A or B — 3 points. 4 — Advanced History History A — 3 points. (C) Also two of the courses following, unless the subjects appearing in connection with them are offered at entrance : I — Chemistry Physical Science i — 2 points. 2 — Physics Physical Science 2 — 2 points. 3 — Botany Biology i — 2 points. 4 — Zoology Biology 2 — 2 points. 5 — Physiography Geography i — 2 points. (D) All students in the freshman and sophomore years of the Col- legiate Course are required to. take systematic physical exercise two hours weekly, under the direction of the Professor of Physical Educa- tion. Students may meet this requirement by taking, with credit. Physi- cal Education i or 2. Electives should be selected with a view to the Professional Course that is to iollow. Courses in Education (except Psychology A and Education 10, which are recommended' to qualified sophomores) are not open to collegiate students.^ The last two years are considered professional. If taken without the two years of collegiate work, they lead to Bach- elors' diplomas. The following is the course leading to the diploma in elementary education : Junior Year Prescribed (s points) : Psychology A— Elements of psychology, and Education 10 — Educational psychology — (to- gether) 3 points. Education 12 — Child study— 2 points. 1 Teachers College Announcement, 1904-1905, pp. 35-37. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 19 Elective (10-13 points) Prescribed (8 points) ; Elective (7-10 points) (o) Recommended for primary teachers : Biology and Physical Education 3, Education 16, English A, English 2 or S, English 10, Geography i, History A, Manual Training i and 27, Mathematics B, Music i, Nature Study 10 and 12. [b) Recommended for grammar grade teach- ers: Biology I, Biology 2, Biology and Physical Education 3, English A, English 2 or S, Geography i or 2, History A, History 2, Mathematics B, Manual Training i and 27, Music I, Physical Science I, Physical Science 2. Senior Year Education 50 — History and principles of edu- cation — 3 points. Education 15 — ^General .method and practice teaching — 3 points. Education 20, 26, 32, 38, or 46, with practical work — 2 points. (o) Recommended for primary teachers : Education 20 — Nature Study; Education 26 — English; Education 32 — Geography; Educa- tion 46— Mathematics ; Fine Arts 3, Geog- raphy I or 2, Music 2. (6) Recommended for grammar grade teach- ers: Education 20 — Nature Study; Education 26 — English; Education 32 — Geography; Educa- tion 38 — History; Education 46 — Mathe- matics ; Domestic Art 12, Fine Arts 3, Geog- raphy I, 2, or 3, History 10, Music 2.^ Similar courses are outlined for teachers in secondary schools, teachers of kindergarten, domestic art, domestic science, fine arts, manual training, music, physical educa- tion. These subjects are common to all as prescribed work : Elements of psychology, educational psychology, and history and principles of education. All graduate 1 Teachers College Announcement, 1904-1905, pp. 39-40. 20 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION diplomas or degrees require of the candidate educational psychology, and history and principles of education, as well as ability to read French and German. The College of Education in Chicago University outlines the following two years' course for teachers in the elemen- tary schools : ^ Philosophy and Education 3 points. History, English, and Oral Reading 3 Ants 2 Mathematics i Science 3 Electives 6 (Total required) i8 Specific prerequisites for this work are Psychology, Ethics, and Educational Theory — two points. For second- ary and Normal School teachers, " Psychology and Ethics are required as antecedents." In General Course A four points in psychology are required. The Teachers College of the University of Missouri, which began its work in the fall of 1904, offers a four years' course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education. One hundred and twenty (120) hours of work are required. (This means 15 hours of class attend- ance each week.) Further requirements of the student are : " He must complete work in education to the amount of 24 hours, including Practice Teaching (3 to 9 hours credit) and Educational Psychology." " He must com- plete a course in General Psychology with at least 3 hours credit. This course must be completed before the Junior year. Additional work in Psychology, or work in Ethics or in Sociology, may be required by the instructor in charge of any course in education." ^ 1 Chicago University Annual Register, 1902-1903, pp. 137-13S. * Catalogue, University of Missouri, 1904-1905, pp. 143-144. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 2 1 Life certificates to teach in the secondary and elementary schools require the same amount of education and psy- chology. To secure a two years' certificate, the candidate must take education and psychology to the extent of at least half that required for the degree. In the specifications of the Department of Education of the University of California, the following statement is made : " The undergraduate courses are reserved for the third and fourth years of college residence. Students who purpose taking any of the courses in education are advised to prepare for the study by taking one or more of the courses in psychology. After the year 1903-4, Philosophy 2 (general psychology) will be made a prerequisite of all undergraduate courses in the department." * In the University of Wisconsin, psychology is required for teachers' certificates, granted by the university under the regulation of the state. ^ Cornell University requires, for the New York State col- lege-graduate certificate, history of education and principles of education or psychological basis of education.' In Dartmouth College, psychology is " strongly recom- mended as a preparation for the courses in education." ■* The University of Cincinnati requires psychology in its Teachers' College." In the University of Michigan," three courses are re- quired for both the teachers' diploma and the teachers' cer- tificate: Practical Pedagogy (text, Gordy's A Broader Ele- 1 Catalogue, University of California, 1904, p. 136. 2 Catalogue, University of Wisconsin, 1903-1904, p. 94. s Cornell Register, 1904-1905, pp. 131-132. * Catalogue, Dartmouth College, 1903-1904, p. 147. 5 Catalogue, 1903-1904, p. 178. « Catalogue of the University of Michigan, 1903-1904, pp. 92, 93, 124. 22 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION mentary Education) ; The Art of Study (text, Hinsdale's The Art of Study) ; Theoretical and Critical Pedagogy (text, Harris' Psychological Foundations of Education) . These nine colleges and universities represent adequately the leading ones giving work in education. 3. NORMAL SCHOOLS The first Normal School in this country was founded at Lexington, in 1839. Within that year three more were started in Massachusetts. New York followed with one at Albany, in 1844. Other schools were established rapidly until in Massachusetts there are now eight; in New York, twelve; in the whole country, one hundred and eleven. The schools referred to here are State Public Normal Schools. The United States Commissioner's Report for 1902 gives the following classification of all Normal Schools : ^ 1. Public Normal Schools 173 2. Private Normal Schools log 3. Public Normal Schools in universities and colleges... 39 4. Private Normal Schools in universities and colleges.. 195 5. Public Normal Schools in high schools 368 6. Private Normal Schools in high schools 357 The type of the third and fourth classes has already been indicated in the treatment of schools of education in col- leges and universities. Tlie fifth and sixth classes are prob- ably intended to include many of the city training classes, the work of which is similar to that of the regular Normal Schools, though usually more limited in character and scope. The curricula in the various State Normal Schools in any 1 Report, Commissioner of Education, igo2, p. 1581. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 23 given state are quite uniform, being usually prepared by state officials, or by the joint action of the principals of the various schools. In most schools the work is wholly pre- scribed. The general course of study prescribed by the Board of Education of Massachusetts for the schools of that state is the following: 1. Psychology, history jf education, principles of teaching, methods of instruction and discipline, school organization, school laws of Massa- chusetts. 2. Methods of teaching the following subjects : (o) English — reading, language, composition, literature, history. (6) Mathematics — arithmetic, bookkeeping, elementary algebra, and geometry. (c) Science— elementary physics and chemistry, geography, physiology and hygiene, study of minerals, plants, and animals. (d) Drawing, vocal music, physical trainnng, manual training. 3. Observation and practice in the training school, and observation in other public schools.^ This course of study was adopted May 6, 1880. Pro- vision is made for four other courses, mere modifications of this one, which is planned as a two years' course for those intending to teach in the elementary schools of the state. The equivalent of a high school education is re- quired for admission. The time devoted to each subject varies in the different schools. The schools of New York state have four courses, which were adopted September i, 1900.^ Two of these courses are for those students who are not graduates of high schools. These are four years in length. The other two are for high school graduates, and are two years in length, as follows: 1 Westfield (Mass.) Catalogue for igoi. » New Paltz (N. Y.) Year Book, 1902-1903. 24 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Classical and English Those in the English course omit the ancient and modern language requirements below and subsititute 5 hours of work per week under advice of division adviser. Classical students omit economics and astronomy. FIRST year First Semester Second Semester Rhetoric 4 English literature 4 Psychology 4 Psychology and General meth. 4 Math, review ist 10 wk. 4 Science meth. 2d 10 wk. 4 Prim. meth. ist 10 wk. 4 Arithmetic meth. 4 Geog. meth. 4 Music ist 10 wk. 2 Drawing 2d 10 wk. 4 Music meth. 3d S wk. 4 Grammar meth. 4 Geog. math, ist 10 wk. 4 Music 2d 10 wk. 2 Lang. meth. ist 10 wk. 4 Draw. meth. 4th S wk. 4 SECOND year First Semester Second Semester Latin review S Civics 2d 10 wk. Adv. U. S. hist. S Greek, French or German IV Num. meth. 2d 10 wk. 4 Hist, of ed. ist 10 wk. 5 Economics or Library economy 3 Astronomy ist wk. 3 Grammar meth. 4 School law 2d 10 wk. 5 School Econ. ist 10 wk. s Teaching Teaching Child Study once a week during the year.'^ The time given to each subject is not uniform in the various schools. Other slight modifications are made to meet local conditions. The last catalogue of the State Nor- mal College '' at Albany shows quite an innovation in the curricula ofifered. Many elective courses are opened, but certain subjects are required, such as Psychology, History of Education, Philosophy of Education, etc. The State Normal Schools of Wisconsin have the fol- lowing course designated by the Board of Regents : ' 1 Nerw Paltz (N. Y.) Year Book, 1902-1903. ' Circular and Announcement, 1904, pp. 12-21. » Catalogue, Oshkosh Normal School, 1901, p. 63. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 25 JUNIOR YEAR First Quarter Third Quarter Observation Theory German, or other language German Drawing Drawing Rhetoric Music Physics Second Quarter Fourth Quarter Theory School Management German Professional Geography Drawing German School Law (>^) Algebra Professional Reading {}i) Music SENIOR YEAR First Quarter Third Quarter Practice Teaching History of Education Professional Arithmetic Professional English Psychology Elective Science Geometry Literature Second Quarter Fourth Quarter Economics Science of Education Professional History {%) Practice Teaching Professional Gymnastics {}i') Elective Science Psychology Literature Practice Teaching The Normal Schools of California are well represented by the one at Los Angeles. Its course of study is : ^ FIRST YEAR Middles Middle A Professional Psychology 20-4 Psychology 20-4 English Composition, etc., 20-4 Science Physiology 20-4 Biology 20-4 Domestic Science 20-2 Domestic Science 20--3 Geography and History U. S. History 20-4 Art and Manual Training Drawing 20-2 Drawing 20-s Sloyd 20-2 Sloyd 20-3 Miscellaneous Reading 20-4 Music 20-2 Music 20-2 Physical Culture 20-2 Physical Culture 20-j 1 Catalogue, Los Angeles Normal School, igoi. 26 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Professional English Science Geoeraphy and History Mathematics SECOND YEAR Senior B Hist. & Phil, of Ed. a)-3 General Fedaeoey 2o~3 Pedagogy of Grammar 20-3 Pedagogy of Physics 20-2 Pedagogy of Geography 20-4 Pedagogy of Arith. 20-s Art and Manual Training Pedagogy of Drawing 20-2 Miscellaneous Pedagogy of Music 20-1 Pedagogy of Phy. Cult. 20-2 Senior A School Law 20-2 School Economy 10-3 Teaching ao-isji Lit. in the grades 20-2 Method in Language 20-1 Method in Biology 20-1 Method in History 20-1 Method in Geography 20-1 Method in Arith. 20-1 Method in Drawing 20-1 Method in Reading 20-1 Method in Music 20-1 Method in Phy, Cult. 20-2 The schools of these four states represent adequately the leading Normal Schools of the country. In these three groups of institutions, aiming to prepare teachers for their work, the emphasis upon psychology as an essential is evident. 1 . Examinations ( leading to state certificates ) . Nine leading states are here represented. Four distinctly require psychology. One requires " professional " work. One requires "pedagogy" (whatever this includes). Three call for academic work only. 2. Universities (granting teachers' certificates). Nine leading institutions are represented here. Seven distinctly require psychology. One strongly recommends psychology. One makes no mention of psychology, as such. 3. Normal Schools (granting diplomas and certificates). Four states, including about 30 of the leading schools, are here represented. All distinctly require work in psychology. (So far as I could ascertain, in looking over about 100 catalogues of State Normal Schools, psychology is included in all.) PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 27 Development of the Idea that Psychology is Es- sential IN THE Training of Teachers I. before normal schools took up this work Gordy has written on the Rise atid Growth of the Normal School Idea in the United States/ He says that the first suggestion of this which he finds is in the Massachusetts Magazine for June, 1789. Here it is stated: "There should be a pubHc grammar school established in each county in the state in which should be taught English Grammar, Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, Geography, Mathematics, etc., in order to fit young gentlemen for college and school teaching." The famous school law of 1647 gave to the towns of Massachusetts a grammar school. The grammar school here referred to is, therefore, more especially in- tended for the training of teachers. Gordy speaks further of the contribution to the Normal School idea given by Olmsted, of Yale, 1816; by Kingsley, of Yale, in 1823; also by Russel, of the New Haven Academy, and editor of the American Journal of Education, in 1823; and by Hall, who is recognized as the first principal of the first teachers' seminary in America, at Concord, in 1823. Here was pre- pared his Lectures on School Keeping, a brief outline of which is given in Barnard's American Journal of Educa- tion, vol. S, p. 388. While the contributors mentioned emphasize the need of training schools for teachers, none of them gives expression to the need of studying other subjects than those which are to be taught. In 1825, in the Boston Patriot, ptiblished by James G. Carter, appeared a series of articles with the signature 1 Also found in the United States Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, 1891, No. 8, pp. 1-142. 28 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION " Franklin," giving suggestions for an institution for the training of teachers.^ It was there maintained that such an institution should " open up a new science somewhat peculiar to itself in the science of the development of the human mind. . . . The philosophy of the infant mind must be understood by the instructor before much progress can be made in the science of education. . . . Every book, there- fore, which would aid in an analysis of the youthful mind should be placed in the librai-y of the proposed institution." This is the first expression I find on the need of studying mental phenomena in the preparation of a teacher. Vari- ous other articles appear about this time in the Boston Patriot, North American Review, United States Review, Literary Gazette, but these advocate the founding of teach- ers' seminaries without going into detail. In the same year, 1825, Johnson issued a pamphlet on " The Need of Attending Lectures on the Science of Mental Develop- ment." ' In 1830 a school for the training of teachers was attached to Phillips Academy, at Andover. S. R. Hall was made principal. The course of study contains " intellectual phil- osophy " in the third year." In 1830, J. G. Carter, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and often called the " Father of American Normal Schools," wrote an article on " Develop- ment of Intellectual Faculties." * Here he speaks strongly in favor of the study of mind as a requisite in the prepara- tion of a teacher. " The foundations of a teacher's pro- 1 Portions are quoted in Barnard, On Normal Schools, p. 75 et seq. 2 Gordy, supra, p. 14. * Barnard, American Journal of Education, -vol. v, p. 379. * American Institute of Instruction, 1830, pp. 52-95. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 29 fessional skill are laid in an intimate acquaintance with the conditions, states, and wants of the youthful mind." He attempts a practical application in a lesson on map-drawing, the methods of which are much like the methods of to-day. A. R. Baker, in the same periodical three years later, re- peats the thought in an article " On the Adaptation of In- tellectual Philosophy to Instruction." ^ His emphasis is upon the intimate relation between intellectual philosophy and education. Intellectual philosophy is defined as " a science of the human mind which investigates its phenom- ena, and applies the results of the investigation to the prac- tical purposes of active life." In 1833, Dr. Channing speaks of the importance of hav- ing the teacher comprehend " the mind in all its capacities, tracing out the laws of thought and moral actions, under- standing the perfection of human nature." ^ J. Gregg, in 1835, is yet more emphatic in writing on " The Importance of an Acquaintance with the Philosophy of Mind to an Instructor." ^ He says this is not mere psychology. " It do.es not consist merely in the observation and arbitrary classification of the phenomena of the con- scious states of the mind." It is rather " the knowledge of man as an intellectual and spiritual being — of his natures, powers, capacities, habitudes, wants — of the laws and prin- ciples that regulate the various mental and moral phenom- ena which he exhibits." The article aims to show that the philosophy of mind teaches the true (i) nature, (2) method, (3) means, and (4) ends of education. It is here very clear, as the article claims, that by the philosophy of mind 1 American Institute of Instruction, 1833, pp. 263-288. ^ Quoted by Barnard, On Normal Schooh, p. 93. ^American Institute of Instruction, 1835, pp. 111-131. 30 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION is intended what was then known as a scientific study of psychology, and also a philosophy of education. By act of the Legislature of New York, May 2, 1834, the Regents of the University were authorized to apply a part of the income of the Literature Fund to educate the teachers of the common schools. In the following year, 1835,^ a plan was put into effect whereby a department for the training of teachers was grafted upon selected academies. The course of study for teachers included the following : 1. The English Language. 2. Writing and Drawing. 3. Arithmetic, Mental and Written, and Bookkeeping. 4. The History of the United States. 5. Geometry, Trigonometry, Mensuration, and Survey- ing. 6. Geography and General History (continued). 7. Natural Philosophy and the Elements of Astronomy. 8. Chemistry and Mineralogy. 9. The Constitution of the United States and of New York. 10. Select Parts of the Revised Statutes and the Duties of Public Officers. 11. Moral and Intellectual Philosophy. 12. The Principles of Teaching.^ This indicates that the academies perceived the need of giving to teachers a different kind of curriculum from the mere academic work. Yet this intellectual philosophy is probably not specially for teachers, as it is found in An- 1 First Quarto— Centennial History— PcAsAam Normal School, p. 17. " Report, State Superintendent, 1836-1837, pp. 41-42. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 31 dover Academy in 1848, and in Albany Academy in 1874,^ when this work had passed from the academy to the Nor- mal School. But in the rise of Normal Schools, the acad- emies lost the work of training teachers. Horace Mann, in 1839, in advocating Normal Schools for Massachusetts, opposed the academies of New York on the ground that in these the teachers' training department was only grafted on, while for real success it should be the principal part; hence the need of a distinct institution, the Normal School. These few expressions are types of many other opinions of those early years as to one particular subject of study needed by those who would be teachers. No reader will find in any of these writings a detailed conception of psy- chology, nor of what it has to offer to the prospective teacher. Yet one cannot fail to feel the insistence made that the study of mind is essential in preparing for efficient teaching. The public advocacy of such beliefs was a fore- runner of what was soon to be found in Normal Schools. 2. IN THE NORMAL SCHOOLS /. Early Normal Schools. The first course of study for Normal Schools was adopted by the Board of Education of Massachusetts in 1840. It was as follows, and is essentially that outlined by Horace Mann the year before at the opening of the work at Lex- ington : 1. Orthography, Reading, Grammar, Composition and Rhetoric, Logic. 2. Writing, Drawing. 3. Arithmetic, Mental and Written; Algebra; Geom- etry; Bookkeeping; Navigation; Surveying. 4. Geography, Ancient and Modern, with Chronology, Statistics, and General History. 1 See Catalogue for these years. 32 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 5. Physiology. 6. Mental Philosophy. 7. Music. 8. Constitution and History of Massachusetts and the United States. 9. Natural Philosophy, and Astronomy. ID. Natural History. 11. The Principles of Piety and Morality, common to all sects of Christians. 12. The Science and Art of Teaching, with reference to all the above-named stiidies} [The italics show the emphasis intended at that time.] In his opposition to the attempt of the House of Repre- sentatives in Massachusetts, in 1840, to break up the Nor- mal Schools, Mr. Geo. B. Emerson, formerly principal of the Boston High School, based his arguments upon three prominent features of the work as carried on by Cyrus Pierce, principal of the Normal School at Lexington. The second of these features was the emphasis upon leading prospective teachers to an acquaintance with the minds and character of children.^ Dr. Samuel Howe, director of the Institute for the Blind in Boston, reported his observations of the work at Lexing- ton. " To me, sir, it was deUghtful to see how they [the students] were becoming acquainted with the nature of the children's minds before they undertook to manage them. . . . Every one was desirous of becoming acquainted with the philosophy of mind." * 1 Common School Journal, 1839, pp. 37-38. S«e also Barnard, On Normal Schools, pp. 56-57. ^ Common School Journal, 1840, p. 237. » Common School Journal, 1840, p. 238. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 33 The attempt of the House of Representatives failed, and the Normal Schools, under the lead of Horace Mann, con- tinued and maintained " mental science," or " philosophy of the mind" (various names were used), as one of the requisites in the training of teachers. The first Normal School of New York state was founded at Albany in 1844. Its first course of study included Abercrombie's Intellectual Philosophy.^ The first Normal school in Connecticut was founded at New Britain in 1850. The catalogue shows as a portion of the course " The Art of Teaching and its Methods, in- cluding the history and progress of education, the philos- ophy of teaching and discipline, as drawn from the nature of the juvenile mind. . . ." ^ These few schools referred to are doubtless typical of all early Normal Schools. The following generalizations are easily made, in studying further the courses of study offered : 1. The Normal Schools had a conception that the science of education and the art of teaching were in some way based on the philosophy of mind, but, 2. The need of a more thorough knowledge of the acad- emic work was so great that the instruction in the common branches was the chief work of these schools, so that, 3. Work in intellectual philosophy was rather secondary, and that, too, quite vague. But in the work of these early schools there is a distinct beginning of the teaching of psychology as essential in the preparation of the teacher. 2. Sixty Years of Normal School Work. An examination of the catalogues of the Normal Schools of Massachusetts and New York from their beginning to * Register and Circular, 1846, p. 16. * Barnard, On Normal Schools, pp. 48-49. 34 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION the present time; as also the State Annual Reports of these schools (which are very meager) lead one to the following conclusions : 1. Mental philosophy of some kind — even if only in name— has been in the courses of study from the beginning. 2. This subject has always been very vague and indefi- nite; yet it evidenced a constant endeavor to point to an important relation between the ability to teach and the knowledge of mental activity. 3. This subject is mixed up with other educational sub- jects, such as the history of education, philosophy of edu- cation, general method, etc. It has usually been taught by the principal of the school in connection with the other sub- jects mentioned. (At present, there are only three schools in Massachusetts which have special teachers of psychology, and in New York only five. ) 4. There is no distinct time when " Psychology," as such, first appeared. It is thus mentioned first in Westfield, 1867 ; Bridgewater, 1869; Framingham, 1876. But there is no indication that the name changed the character of the work. 5. There is no indication of any uniformity in the char- acter of the work done, though the aims of the work, as stated in the catalogues of the various schools, are in close agreement. The only effort towards united action in this respect is that which was taken by the Wisconsin Normal Schools in an institute held at Oshkosh, December 17- 21, 1900, when the schools of the state agreed upon and formulated aims, content, and method of the work to be done in psychology. 6. There is striking evidence of a great lack of develop- ment in this work from the beginning. However, in a few schools, quite a change has been made in recent years, par- ticularly since 1897. This recent change seems due largely PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 35 to the pressure brought to bear by the Normal School de- partment of the National Educational Association. The work of this organization in this particular can be summed up briefly. J. The Influence of the National Edricational Association. The National Educational Association began in 1858, as the National Teachers' Association. The Normal School department gave the subject of psychology no attention until 1863. For the next decade various well-known men gave addresses emphasizing the value of psychology in the preparation of the teacher (in 1863, Dr. Sheldon/ of the Oswego Normal School; in 1864, President Hill/ of Har- vard; in 1865, President Edwards/ of the lUinois Normal University; in 1866, W. F. Phelps,* of the Winona (Wis.) Normal School; in 1871, J. W. Dickinson/ principal of the Westfield (Mass.) Normal School). Whatever gen- eral influence these addresses may have had, no definite action was taken. In 1874 were presented two papers, one by L. Dunton," of the Bridgewater (Mass.) Normal School; one by John Ogden,' of Ohio. These aroused sufficient interest to have a motion made that a committee be appointed for definite action, but the motion failed. During the next ten years there was a lull, save that three different years saw an attempt to do something, but in vain. In 1885, A. R. Taylor,* principal of the State Normal School of Kansas, succeeded in securing the appointment of a committee. Tliis became known as the " Chicago Com- 1 N. E. A., 1863, p. 9S. 'Ibid., 1864, p. 179. 3 Ibid., 186s, p. 271. * Ibid., 1866, p. 135. = Ibid., 1871, pp. 73-79- ' Ibid., 1874, pp. 234-245. ' Ibid., 1874, pp. 216-229. ' Ibid., 1885, p. 223. 36 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION mittee." In 1889, this committee made its final report on "Methods of Instruction and Courses of Instruction in Normal Schools." ^ This was so general in nature that it reached no definite conclusions. After a life of four years this committee died, leaving only a record of agitation. In the next five years, 1890- 1894, there was practically nothing done. In 1895, Z. X. Snyder, of the Normal School at Gree- ley, Colo., secured the appointment of what became known the next year as the " Denver Committee." This commit- tee worked for four years, and in 1899 made its report. Its chief contribution was the suggestion of six " centers " from which a good Normal School course could be derived. Genetic psychology is given one year's study. In the year 1893, the well-known " Committee of Fif- teen " was appointed by the department of superintendents. It reported in 1895. A sub-committee of five, all city superintendents, prepared a report on " The Training of Teachers." One question answered was, "To wliat extent should psychology be studied, and in what way?" The committee advocated the study of psychology as a basis for principles and methods. " Most fundamental and import- ant of the professional studies which ought tp be pursued by one intending to teach is psychology." ^ The positive report of this committee, together with ap- pended expressions from individual men of educational prominence, has doubtless had considerable influence in arousing more attention to this Subject in the Normal Schools, some of which give considerable evidence of this. Thus far, this chapter has tried to point out present prac- tice as to requirements made of those preparing to teach, 1 N. E. A., 1889, pp. 570-587. 2 Report of Committee of Fifteen, p. 24. PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 37 as carried out in state examination systems and in curricula for intending teachers studying in universities and Normal Schools. Throughout, an emphasis has been found upon psychology.^ This tradition and present practice is used as evidence — generally accepted — that psychology is an essen- tial, a sine qua non, in the preparation of the teacher. Whatever truth there may be in this conclusion, the method would be considered wrong by Pearson. " It is imagina- tion solving the universe, propounding a formula before the facts which the formula is to describe have been col- lected and classified. . . . Every few months we find, in one journal or another, some more or less brilliant hypoth- esis as to a novel factor in evolution; but how few are the instances in which this factor is accurately defined, or, be- ing defined, a quantitative measure of its efficiency is ob- tained." =" ^ The development of this idea as to psychology is doubtless tjfpical of that of any other subject in the Normal School course. 2 Pearson, Grammar of Science, p. 373. CHAPTER III OPINIONS OF STUDENTS AS TO THE VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY It has elsewhere been pointed out that the Normal Schools have from the first emphasized the study of psy- chology by prospective teachers. This subject has appeared in the curriculum of every Normal School throughout the country. It has been tacitly assumed that the scientific or unscientific study of mind is a prerequisite to aiding in the developing of mind. Normal School instructors have looked to this subject as central in the course. Normal School students have usually had little, if any, choice in their vi^ork, and so have studied psychology without question. Patrons of the Normal School, and also the public schools, have usually been in sympathy with the Normal School practice. The real question as to the pedagogical value of psy- chology has been little discussed. The question was, how- ever, raised only two years after the founding of the Nor- mal School. This was done by the editor of the American Institute of Instruction.^ In a large number of articles in this periodical from the year of its founding, 1830 to 1899, the one article referred to is alone in calling in question the usually accepted value credited to this subject. In recent years Professor Miinsterberg sounded a similar dissent in asserting that while psychology is a good educator, it has 1 American Institute of Instruction, 1841, pp. 41-64. 38 VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 39 no practical use in the hands of the teacher. Psychology is general, and cannot do justice to an individual case, as is demanded in teaching. Tact and sympathy are inhibited in the psychological teacher.^ Dr. E. Harlow Russell, the head of one of the best known Normal Schools, while not agreeing with Professor Miinsterberg, emphatically opposes the importance usually given to psychology.^ Just what psychology contributes to the individual teacher in her work is not easy to determine. It may even be im- possible, and thus always remain a matter of personal judg- ment. Yet, a consensus of personal opinion cannot but contribute to the problem, even if not directly to the solu- tion. A very limited questionnaire study has been made of the problem as to the contribution of psychology to efficiency in teaching. Many such studies have been pub- lished in the Pedagogical Seminary, and a few in the Amer- ican Journal of Psychology. The methods there used have been rightly subjected to pointed criticisms.' i. Much ignorance in reply to such questions is used as if it were wisdom, but " no research can ever retain a reliability be- yond that possessed by the data with which it starts." 2. The facts reported are from a small and probably peculiar portion of the class involved, and hence are not represen- tative. 3. The interpretation of the replies is largely a matter of personal opinion, and unless corrected by various checks, may lead to gross error. 4. " The progress from a set of statements about individuals to a statement about a group including them is by no means a matter of simple addition." Thus conclusions reached through such unscien- tific methods would be wholly unreliable. '^Atlantic Monthly, 85, p. 656 (May, 1900). ' Address before the New England Normal Council, May 15, 1903. » Thorndike, Educational Psychology, pp. 152-162. 40 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION In the face of such plausible criticisms (with which I fully agree) a questionnaire study cannot be put forth for the purpose of conviction unless the above errors in method can be rendered harmless. In the present study, my use of the replies will be such as to make them- at least of no great importance. The conclusions from this questionnaire study do not, therefore, pretend to be proved facts, but are given only as hypotheses suggested by the study. The purpose of this questionnaire was to get an estimate of the worth of psychology, as studied in Normal Schools, from the graduates of those schools now actively engaged in teaching. Questions were sent to graduates of all Nor- mal Schools in Massachusetts save one, to all such schools in New York save two, and to a few schools in Pennsyl- vania and the Northwest. Questions were sent to four hundred and seventy-two persons, most of whom had grad- uated since 1897, and had had at least two years of experi- ence. The following are the questions : ■ I. What did you feel to be the aim in the study of psy- chology ? 2. What portions of psychology were most emphasized? 3. What text-books or works on psychology did you study or read? 4. Did you find in psychology principles for teaching? Please suggest one or more. 5. Which has helped you the more in. your work, your study of psychology, or your study of principles and meth- ods based on experience? A total of one hundred and sixty-seven replies were re- ceived. Twenty-seven schools were represented in these replies. The replies to the individual questions are con- sidered merely for their suggestiveness. It must be ad- mitted at the outset that the number of replies considered is VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 41 exceedingly small. A consensus of opinion really worth considering would probably ask for no fewer replies from each one of the twenty-seven schools. The individuals, however, to whom these questions were sent were selected wholly at random from lists furnished by the several schools. Thorndike, in his criticisms given above, points out that the questionnaire method is deficient on the ground that those who do reply are a special group, by reason of the desire either to oppose or support a suggested problem, while those without this desire do not trouble themselves in answering the questions asked. But in the case of the present ques- tionnaire, those not replying would probably support, even more than those who did reply, the conclusions given below. Upon the basis of this brief study, the following general- izations are made: 1. In the minds of those teaching, the work of psychol- ogy in the Normal Schools was very indefinite and unpro- ductive. 2. The work done by the various schools^ or by students in the same school, is not centered about a few principles, but is scattered. 3. The consensus of opinion is strongly in preference for experience rather than psychology as a contributing factor in their success as teachers. 4. Normal Schools where there is a special teacher of psychology give a more favorable impression of the value of the study of psychology. 5. The opinions concerning 3. summarized in this study are found inconsistent with the evidence on the same ques- tion, given by the historical point of view,^ and also by the statistical study of the relation of psychology to teaching.* (However, this latter study, while showing that the cor- relations between scholarship in psychology and teaching 1 See Chapter II. ^ See Chapter IV. 42 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION efficiency is .418, does not assert that the whole other factor involved is experience.) The question of greatest interest is the fifth. We are interested in the direct question as to whether the teacher is conscious of help from her study of psychology in the Normal School. The answers to the other questions, how- ever, explain somewhat the positions taken with respect to the fifth. The principle of apperception requires that only when a student " knows the purpose of the exercise do apperceiv- ing ideas flow in rich fulness." That is, we expect a stu- dent to gain from his study of a subject in proportion as he knows the aim in the work. For this reason the first question was asked : " What did you feel to be the aim in the study of psychology?" To this question only 135 an- swers were made. This is only 81 per cent, of the whole number making replies, and only 29 per cent, of those to whom letters were sent. There are, however, representa- tives from every one of the zy schools. The answers are easily grouped as follows : 1. Knowledge of mind for the purpose of instruction. 2. Knowledge of mind as a scientific study. 3. " To understand the child." 4. Ethical development. 5. Special: i. e., scattering answers. Table I shows the distribution: Table I Aniwers Number ot Per cent, ot Replies Per cent, of Reflia Answers. to this Question. to Total Inquiries. 1 76 . s6 16 2 26 19 6 3 II 8 2 4 4 3 I— S 20 14 4 It is readily seen that the educational aspect has the VALUE OP NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 43 greatest prominence. Its interest is in its relation to the position taken on the fifth question considered below. It would be expected that the 56 per cent, who found this edu- cational aim would also find pedagogical help in the work, but the answers to question five are to the contrary. The chief interest in the answers to the second question (What portions of psychology were most emphasized?) is in what they do not contain — I mean in their lack of defi- niteness. The answers were too scattered to have mean- ing : e. g., " Mental Development," " Fundamental Prin- ciples," " Principles of Teaching." Other answers covered an indefinite range : e. g., " Mental Development," " Mem- ory," "Attention," "Will," "Interest," "Imagination," all these in one answer. The leading conclusion, then, on this question is that no strong impression of one large and central thought, such as Herbart's apperception, or James' emphasis on native and acquired reactions, was made. The students left the school with many names of psychological topics in mind, and with no central thought. Answers to the question on text-books show the chaotic condition of Normal School instruction in psychology. Forty-eight different books are mentioned. James, Talks to Teachers and Briefer Course (not distinguished), heads the list. Next in order are I^alleck, Sully, Baldwin, (Joseph, I suspect,) Todd, Titchener, etc. Some books are mentioned that are not now regarded as of much pedagog- ical worth, e. g., Haven, Porter, Hitchcock, Alden. Some replies show lack of knowledge as to what are psychologies by naming Laurie, Mann, McMurry, Rousseau. The fourth question asked what principles for teaching were found in the study of psychology. A large number were given. Many were answers in a single word, and this not in all cases suggestive of a real principle. The fol- lowing is the list of fifteen given in two or more of the answers : 44 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Number of votes Value of votes 1. Proceed from the Known to the Unknown- 37 22 + 2. Association and Apperception 21 13 + 3. Perception 18 12 + 4. Habit 23 12 + 5. Attention 18 8 + 6. Interest I4 6 + 7. Memory 11 5 + 8. Order of Mental Development 8 S + 9. Self-activity 2 2 10. Judgment 2 1 + 11. Idea first, then the Name 2 1 + 12. Proceed from the Whole to the Parts 2 13. Proceed from the Particular to the General- 3 14. First Impressions Are Strongest 3 15. Proceed from the Easy to the Difficult 2 Only 109 replies were made to this question, i. e., 65 per cent, of total answers, and 23 per cent, of the inquiries made. The question of importance here is the emphasis laid upon the various so-called principles. Some mentioned one only; others gave several. It is unjust to count each principle suggested as one. The problem is essentially that of counting the ballots of voters who had the privilege of voting for any number they pleased. But in voting for more than one they thereby split their vote. Thus, one who cast five ballots gave to each of such candidates one-fifth of a vote. The list above shows 'the results by two methods. The first column of figures shows the total of 195 ballots cast for the various " candidates." The second column of fig- ures shows the result when each candidate received only his share when a ballot was split. The relative rank is thus slightly changed. Here it is seen that the " Proceed from the Known to the Unknown " " covers a multitude of sins." It is one of the indefinite statements so character- istic of all the answers. Secondly, it is evident that the Normal School psychology in the various schools is not emphasizing a few, but many diverse, principles. Percent, of total. Percent, of 114. 6l (71%) 76 19 (29%) 24 20 VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 45 The fifth question is the most direct and important one: " Which has helped you more in your work, your study of psychology, or your study of principles and methods, based on experience?" The total number of answers to this question was 143, i. e., 85 per cent, of all answers given and 30 per cent, of inquiries made. The distribution is as follows : Ansu/ers. In favor of experience. ... 87 In favor of psychology. ... 27 The two not separated. ... 29 There is evidence here of a strong emphasis upon ex- perience as more helpful than psychology. The 71 and 29 per cents, express the ratio when the answers of the 29, who do not separate experience and psychology, are evenly divided. The more equitable method, however, is to dis- card in this treatment these 29. This gives '^6 and 24 as the percentages of the positive answers for experience and psychology. The question as stated may be interpreted as referring to psychology as a subject independent of the Normal School. It is perfectly possible that many of the answers are upon this basis. However, there is evidence that it was not so considered in the answers. Again, most of the answers are given by teachers who have been out of the Normal School less than five years, and they give no evidence of studying much psychology in that time. Again, as will be shown, there are a large number of positive refer- ences to the psychology as studied in the school. The ratio in favor of experience is of even more weight than indi- cated by the figures, when, as referred to above, it is re- membered that the answers — in large measure — are from those with quite limited experience. This want of experi- ence gives an advantage, if anything, to the side of psy- chology. 46 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION It is of interest and profit to note the impression made by a few individual schools. It seems natural to expect that those schools having special teachers in psychology would impress their students with the importance of psy- chology; whereas, in those schools in which the subject is given by the principal of the school, with a much more general treatment, much less may be expected. Table II, A and B, shows the schools having special teachers of psychology, and those having none, respectively. (Schools 23 to 29 are omitted, since there seems to be no definite field of psychology distinct from pedagogy.) At the side of the school list is indicated the number favoring experience or psychology. A marked contrast is seen at once. In those schools having special teachers of psychol- ogy; 35/^ psf cent, favor psychology; while in the other class of schools, the per cent, is reduced to 10. In group A, only one school, No. 20, gives evidence which might have been expected of schools with special teachers. Yet this weight is somewhat lessened when it is known that of the seven who directly favor psychology, three are teachers of psychology ; one as principal of a Normal School, one at the head of this department in a Normal School, the third as teacher of a city training class. A similar disposition can be made of three of the seven in school No. 11. In group A are only three schools in which those favoring psychology equal their opponents in number, and in two of these cases they exceed. In group B, six schools have none in favor of the psychology studied ; and the other four schools have only one representative each on this side. Thus, even in those schools where much might be expected in emphasis upon psychology, little support is found, and much less by the other group. Some characteristic replies of individuals throw a decided light upon the impression Normal School psychology has made upon those who have pursued the work. VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE II PSYCHOLOGY VS. EXPERIENCE 47 A From schools with special u ^ teachers of psychology. S ^ 1 o 1 "o >> ra 1 u s _o "o -a u *. I 5 I I 3 2 I 2 I 6 I 3 2 I 8 I I 2 4 3 2 9 3 2 3 4 I I 10 4 I g I II 16 7 I 8 I I 2 18 4 I 2 9 3 2 3 20 3 7 4 10 4 I 38 2 I I II i6 8 s 7 I 39 6 I 2 I^ 40 = 64>^ % 22 = 3SK % 17 i8 4 3 I 2 1 1 1 19 20 3 7 4 B 21 I I I From schools without special 22 23 24 7 I 3 I I 2 2 teachers of psychology. • b^ 25 I c 26 3 ^ Geometry. The last five branches mentioned refer to acad- emic work preparatory to the work in the training school. The marks in school K are upon local examinations for teachers' certificates. The number of marks in the various subjects taken and upon teaching will average about twenty for each individual. This means about 25,000 (over 24,- 000) records used in this investigation. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 57 TABLE III Schools A B C D E F G H I J K Teaching Y Y Y Y Y Y Instruction. Y Y " Discipline.. Y Y City Exam. " Hist. Prin. . - . . Y Y " Methods Y Y " Total Y Y Practice Teach Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Psychology YYYYYY YYY Educ. Psy. Y Hist.ofEd. Y YYY V^ Y Y "Education" Y Y Y Mathematics YYYYYY Y Y Math. Ac. YYY Science YYYYYY Y Y Science Ac. YYY History YYYYYY Y Y History Ac. Y Y Y English YYYYYY Y Y English Ac. Y Y Y Art Y Y Man. Train Y Y Gymnastics Y Academic work prior to training school work. Mathematics Y Y Science Y Y History Y Y English Y Y Mod. Lang. Y 2. Character of Data. It must be frankly admitted at the outset that a strictly scientific treatment of the problem in hand is handicapped by the very nature of the data used. We have a strictly quantitative measure for land in the " foot-front " or acre, for coal in the ton or car-load. These are absolute meas- ures and are universal. Not so in the measurement of scholarship or teaching efficiency. These are mental traits ^8 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION to which physical measurements do not apply. Yet in almost all phases of educational work amounts of mentality are commonly expressed in some form of units of measure. Examinations are marked 98%, 86%, 37%, etc.; or by let- ters A, B, B — , C, C — , D, etc. ; or by numbers i, 2, 3, etc. ; or by words " excellent," " good," " poor," etc. Various are the terms used, not only in examinations, but in daily recitations, in written work of all forms, as symbols of impressions of teaching efficiency and of general scholarship. These " marks " are commonly accepted as good meas- ures, and they are commonly understood. Only in critical cases are these marks called in question, when it is seen that the same " mark " given by different individuals does not measure the same amount of mentality. 98% given by one teacher may mean the same as 86% given by an- other; an " A " student under one instructor is only a " B " student as marked by another. Further, and as a conse- quence of what has just been said, any " mark " is not a measure of the student's absolute mental ability, but is rather an expression of an individual's estimate of that ability. It is, in the last analysis, a personal opinion, rather than a universal measure. Yet, in spite of these real difficulties, we had best use " marks," for they are practically the only available meas- ures at present of mentality. This investigation makes use of such "marks," though tentatively, as approximations to true measures of ability, if treated as determining the order of merit. Conclusions reached from such data will be sub- ject to less criticism by reason of the two facts mentioned, vis., these " marks " are commonly accepted as an adequate measure, and these " marks " are commonly understood, though not with great accuracy. Time and experience may develop a standard of measurement of various mental traits, as the foot and ton in physical measurements. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 59 J. Method of Securing Data. 1. Marks for teaching efficiency. There are very few school systems where we find the teachers graded on the efficiency of their work. (This is done in practice work in training schools, but seldom in actual school work.) If each principal or superintendent marked his teachers, as these teachers mark their pupils, we would have at hand an estimate of the teaching power of each. But such is not the case. Any attempt to secure this estimate from the principals of 1,185 teachers scattered throughout three states or more, or to inquire into the actual work done by these teachers, would be an almost insur- mountable task. Another method was taken. Principals of Normal Schools usually follow quite closely the work of their graduates. The estimate of such men is probably the best available mark for teaching efficiency. This is the mark used in this study. In selecting the individuals, the roll of classes graduating between 1898 and 1902, inclusive, was taken. The indi- viduals were taken in order, in so far as the principal of the school had followed the work of the graduate sufficiently to be ready to estimate the efficiency of the teaching. All others were discarded. The above method was used for schools A-F, inclusive. For the graduates of schools G and H, marks are given by the principals of the schools in which such graduates are teaching. I have no records of the teaching of graduates of schools I and J. Their practice teaching only was avail- able. Marks for school K were given by the superinten- dents of the three schools respectively. 2. Marks for scholarship. These marks were secured for each of the 1,185 '"^i" ' Mental and Physical Tests, Psy. Rev. Monograph, iii, no. 6, p. 35 6o NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION viduals in the various subjects pursued in the schools, or upon examination. As ah-eady said, the mark in Mathe- matics is the combined marks of whatever subjects are found in that branch. In most of the Normal Schools, these are Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry. This combined mark is not the exact " average " of the other marks, but is rather the probable " mode," which is a truer mark.^ Note. — Wissler, in considering students' marks in Columbia Univer- sity, takes as the standing for the year the " sum of the products of the grades and the number of course hours divided by the total number of such hours, or the average grade per course hours." ^ While this method of exact average is doubtless well used in this case, the "mode" seems preferable where the marks cover a wider range and are less regular. 4. Method of Treatment. (i) Coefficients of correlation. With these " marks " as measures of intellectual powers in various subjects of study and of efficiency in teaching, the question is as to their relations, particularly the relation between teaching efficiency and scholarship in the various branches of study. If the work of the Normal Schools and teachers' colleges is to equip the individual for efficient teaching, it is important to know what subjects of study contribute to this end, and to what relative extent they do so. This calls for measurements of specific mental powers, and of the extent to which an individual's station in one corresponds to his station in others. This is done by a method based on that of Pearson's co- efficient of correlation." This method is not one of abso- 1 Thorndike, Educational Psychology, 166, and Lecture Notes, 1903- 1904. 2 This method 'is fully described in Pearson's Grammar of Science, pp. 392-402; also in Thorndike's Educational Psychology and his Mental and Social Measurements. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 6l lute amount of condition or of change. It is a measure of mental relationship, of the amount of excess or deficiency in relation to the central tendency of various relationships. The index or coefficient of correlation marks the degree of relationship. This may vary from + ioo%, which is per- fect correspondence, to — ioo%, which is perfect opposi- tion. "A correlation of +62% would mean that . . . any given station in the one trait would imply 62 hundredths of that station in the other. A coefficient of — 62% would, of course, mean that any degree of superiority would in- volve 62 hundredths as much inferiority, and vice versa." * This only means that the higher the correlation, the more certain we can be that high scholarship in the given sub- ject is essential in efficient teaching; that a given efficiency in one is connected with proficiency in the other to the ex- tent indicated by the index of correlation. Pearson speaks of the increase in correlation as the " transition of correla- tion into causation. Causation tells us that B will accom- pany A ; correlation tells us the proportion of cases in which B accompanies." ^ One statement only needs to be made as to the method of securing the index of correlation. The Pearson coeffi- cient is obtained by the following process : ' Find the sum of the products of the deviations of one class by the devia- tions associated therewith in the other class; divide this sum by the product of the Standard Deviation of one class multiplied by the Standard Deviation of the other class, multiplied by the whole number of cases. This is ex- pressed by the formula : 1 Thorndike, Mental and Social Measurements, p. 123. 2 Grammar of Science, p. 397. 3 See Pearson's Grammar of Science, p. 400 ; Davenport, Statistical Methods, p. 32; Thorndike, Educational Psychology, p. 26. 62 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION r = -^iiZ The deviations have in all cases been calculated accord- ing to the hypothesis that the relative position of individuals marked by the same person is given by their marks, and that the distributions of the abilities studied approximate the so-called normal type. The amounts of the marks thus have no influence more than to determine within any one school the relative abilities of the individuals. The second part of this hypothesis is by no means secure, but any other way of treating the marks would make little difference in the resulting coefficients of correlation. The large amount of arithmetical work required in finding 2x.y, Ci, and "2, is much lessened by a transmutation table given by Professor Thorndike.^ By this method the follow- ing (Table IV) is an illustration of the treatment of each correlation. The top line of the table proper, exclusive of the figures in italics, reads : The 40 students ranking highest in scholarship in professional studies ranked in teaching efficiency as follows: 17 in the highest group, 14 in the next highest, 4 in the third, 4 in the fourth and i in the lowest group. TABLE IV TEACHING EFFICIENCY Scholarship i in 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Percent ff/IOO Professional 7 17 14 4 4 I 40 = 9 -I-I8I Studies 2 20 20 14 4 S8 = 13 +103 3 24 47 27 14 6 1x8 = 25 + 41 4 13 40 38 14 8 112 = 24 — 23 5 10 20 30 II S 76 ^ 16 — 82 6 5 7 II 7 7 37 = 8 — I3S 7 3 4 9 8 I 25 = S — 210 Totals 91 152 133 62 28 466 Per cent. 20 33 28 13 6 Stand. Dev. -t-140 +36 —45 - -117 - 199 1 Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 89-94. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP The products are : 63 + — 17 X +140 X +181 = 430780 20 +103=^ 288400 24 + 41 = 137760 12 - 23 = 38640 10 - 82 = 1 14800 5 -I3S = 94500 3 — 210 = 88200 14 X + 36 X +181 = 91224 20 +103 = 74160 47 + 41 = 69372 40 — 23 = 33120 20 - 82 = 59040 7 —135 = 34020 4 —210 = 30240 4 X - 45 X +181 = 32580 14 +103 = 64890 27 — 41 = 44280 38 - 23 = 39330 30 — 82 = IIO700 II —135 = 66825 9 — 210 = 85050 4 X —117 X +181 = 84708 4 +103 = 48204 14 -1- 41 = 67158 14 - 23 = 37674 II — 82 = 105534 7 —135 = 110565 8 — 210 = 196560 I X —199 X +181 = 36019 6 + 41 = 48954 8 — 23 = 36616 5 — 82 = 81590 7 -135 = 188055 I —210 = 41790 219198s 919353 466) 919353 1272632(273 r = .273 P.E. of r = .027 n = 466 Note— The above calculations are such that the products should show four decimal places. These have been i inserted 1 in the final result. 64 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION The above method has been followed in the one hundred and twenty tables used. In a few tables the group method has been used to save difficulties and to avoid errors which would probably have been greater than by the method used. The method without grouping is probably the more accu- rate, since it gives more attention to individual cases. The difference, however, is very slight ; for example, in one table the two methods bring as the index of correlation .209 and .208. In the few groupings made, care was taken to group about the centre and avoid any such changes at the ex- tremes. (2) Method of combining schools. It is already apparent that the method used in this study is that of working out individual correlations in various schools. In so doing, the measure of relationship (indi- cated by the index of correlation) between any two abilities is found to vary in the different schools. For example, the indices of correlation between efficiency in teaching and the " professional " work in the Normal Schools are .273, .431, .018, .241, .568. This diffei-ence is due to the difference in the number of cases used in each, to different standards of marking in the various schools, to actual differences in the relation; and there may be other causes. It would, doubtless, be desirable to use data drawn from all these schools subjected to the same measurements in each of the two characteristics compared. This is obviously impossible, since the ratings for each individual considered must come from his own school. We have no " rule " to measure the mental stature of all. In another section ^ of this chapter the averages of these various relations have been worked out, which may stand as representing the relation between * Pages 71, 72. TEACHING EPPICtENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 65 any two traits studied. These averages are of the indices only, as indicated on pages 71, 72. Another method which might have been used is that of combining the whole num- ber of cases in the various schools. This is used in the illustration of method on pages 65-67. The use of the percentage system in grading may be properly considered as a marking by relative positions. For example, if the marks in a given school in a particular class have a range from 59 per cent, to 96 per cent., we may regard the class as divided into 38 groups, arranged in consecutive order, from the best to the poorest in the trait thus measured. As said above, not all the grades be- tween 59 and 96 may be used. In that case, the number of groups is reduced by the number of grades omitted. Did all schools use a system of grading that would give the same number of groups in each class thus rated, to combine the marks of the different schools would be simple. For example, the grades in arithmetic in two given classes may be as follows : (i) 96, 93, 91, 90, 89, 88, 85, 80, 78, 75, 68, 65. (2) 98, 95, 92, 90, 88, 8s, 82, 80, 70, 65, 60, 50. Rank i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and be thus divided into twelve groups according to rela- tive position. The individual (or individuals) in school ( I ) who stands 93 has the same relative position as the in- dividual in school (2) who stands 95; that is, both stand second highest in the class. In such case, the measures in the two schools are easily comparable: by transposing the given grades to the standing in relative position, indicated by the series i to 12. In case one school used twice as many grades as the other, two grades may be combined in one rank. For example, 66 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION (3) 96, 90, 85, 82, 80, 78, 75, 70. , (4) 98, 92, 85, 80, 75, 65, 60, 50. 95, 89, 82, 77, 70, 62, 55, 40. Rank i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. That is, school (4) has used a group system of twice the number used by school (3). A larger unit of measure (in this case 8 groups instead of 16) will place 98 and 95 in the first rank, 92 and 89 in the second rank, etc.. It may seem that the bunching should be at the centre — the mode representing the central tendency — since here a slight change has less effect, and this will be used to some extent shortly. But when we consider the relative position only, and apply a larger unit of measure, the 98 and 95 seem to belong to the first class ; so 50 and 40 to the lowest class. In case, however, the number of groups in one is not an exact multiple of the other, a somewhat different method is to be used. Here a partial grouping at the centre is to play a part. That is, so far as possible, the groups of the larger are to be evenly combined to correspond to the series of a smaller number of groups. But whenever inequality is to exist, the central groups are to receive the more. The following, taken from the data for A6, B6, C6, D6, E6, is an example : School E (5 groups) 12345 " D (5 " ) I 2 3 4 5 " A (10 " ) 1.2 3.4 5.6 7.8 9.10 " C (8 " ) I 2.3 4.5 6.7 8 " B (18 " ) 1-3 4^7 8-1 1 12-15 16-18. The bunching at the centre may be illustrated by the fol- lowing, taken from tables lA, iB, iC, lE: School E (5 groups) 12345 " C (8 " ) I 23-67 8 " B (17 " ) I 2 3-15 16 17 " A (10 " ) I 2 3-8 9 10. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 67 The two methods of grouping give practically no dif- ferences in results, e. g., the index of correlation in a sample case (see Table V) is .288 by the former method and .296 by the latter. Comparing the indices obtained from grouped results with the average indices from the five schools, we find the former slightly higher. TABLE V TABLE I ABCE TABLE I ABCE (I) 2 2 S 4 5 / 2 3 4 5 I 10 II 7 28 I 9 8 5 22 2 16 21 4 3 44 2 II 12 7 I 31 3 12 30 13 7 I 63 3 6 17 18 I 42 4 21 42 77 17 S 162 4 13 17 19s 7 3 23s S 2 5 18 II 4 40 5 2 11 4 3 20 6 4 7 2 5 18 6 I 8 2 I 12 7 10 II 8 II 4 44 7 9 S 16 6 I 37 71 124 134 51 r 19 399 .288 SO 60 260 21 r 8 399 .206 (3) Tables of distribution. The tables of distribution are in themselves of much im- portance. For example, compare the facts for schools A and D in teaching and " professional." The arrays are as follows, expressed in percentage of the total number of cases : In teaching — School A— 4, 7, 22, 16, 20, 19, 6, 3, 3, I. D— 16, 16, 36, 2, 5, 4, 4, 2, 8, 2, 4. In " professional " — School A— I, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 6, 5, 17, 4, 5, 9, 7, 6, 4, 4. D— 32, 21, 21, 13, 13. It is evident in the first two arrays that school D marks teaching efficiency much higher than school A, while in the second group of arrays, the characteristic difference is the 68 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION scale of marking: school A makes close distinctions, while school D covers only a short range, making but five groups. Interpretation and Discussion of Results I. General Explanation of Tables and Tabular View of Indices. The following are the correlations made : ^ No. I. Teaching and Psychology. « 2. it tt History and Principles of Educa- tion. " 3- it tt "Professional" (No. i and No. 2). " 4- It tt Practice Teaching. " 5- it tt Mathematics. " 5-1- t( tt " (academic). " 5-2. ic tt " (secondary). " 6. it tt Science. " 6-1. tt tt " (academic). " 6-2. it tt " (secondary). " 7- (I tt History. " 7-1- tt tt " (academic). " 7-2. tt tt " (secondary). " 8. tt tt English. " 8-1. tt tt " (academic). " 8^2. tt tt " (secondary). " 9- tt tt Modern Language (secondary). " ID. tt tt "Methods" (5, 6, 7, 8). " II. tt tt "Academic" (5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1). " 12. tt tt Practice Teaching and " Methods." " 13- (t tt Practice Teaching and Academic. " 14- tt It General Average. " 15- tt tt Art. " i6. tt tt Manual Training. 1 For indices of correlation, see tabular view in Table VI. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 69 No. 17. Teaching and Gymnasium. " 18. " " City Examination in Methods. " 19. " " City Examination in History and Principles of Education. " 20. " " "Total" (18, 19). " 21. Practice Teaching and Psychology. " 22. " " " Educational Psychology. " 23. " " " Psychology and Educa- tional Psychology. " 24. " " " History and Principles of Education. " 25. " " " " Professional " (21, 22, 24). " 26. " " " Mathematics. " 27. " " " Science. " 28. " " " History. " 29. " " " English. " 30. " " " "Methods" (26-29). " 31. " Professional " and " Methods." " 32. Average in Secondary Schools and Average in Training Schools. " 33. Average in Secondary Schools and Average in City Examinations. " 34. Average in Training Schools and Average in City Examinations. " 35- " Professional " and Average in City Examina- tions. " 36. "Instruction" and "Discipline." " 37. A, B, C, E. Teaching and Psychology (four schools combined). " 38. A, B, C, E. Teaching and Psychology (four schools combined). " 39. A-E. Teaching and "Professional" five schools combined). 70 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION The seven different schools, or groups of teachers studied, are designated by letters A, B, etc., to J. Thus, 4 D is the correlation between teaching and practice teaching in school D. Most of the measures of scholarship are in terms of the old standard per cent, mark, ranging from 100 down- ward. Not all these are consecutive, since in a group of one hundred individuals some may be graded 86, 87, 90, 91, but none 88, 89. These breaks in the series do not in- terfere with the method, which emphasizes relative position rather than absolute standing. School D uses i, 2, 3, in all grades except the mark for teaching efficiency. Other schools use letters A, B, C, etc. These mark relative posi- tions only. In such schools these marks take the place of percents in the series. Still another form is used in some of the series : e. g., 1-2, 2-3, A-B, B-C. These result from making averages of two or more marks. For example, the average of grades i and 2 give the grade 1-2; of B and C, the grade B-C. School H has a special mark used, which will be explained when that table is studied (see page 99). In table VI is given a tabular view of the indices of cor- relation for the various relations studied in the different schools designated by the letters at the top. In each case the index is expressed in thousandths. The few cases of negative correlation are expressed by the — sign. In column X is given the averages of the several schools taken together in the various subjects. These averages are obtained by weighting the individual indices according to the number of cases studied in each. An approximation for the various schools gives the following relation of weight : * A, 3 ; B, 2 ; C. I ; D, 2 ; E, 2 ; F, I ; G, I ; H, 3 ; I, I ; J, 3. Thus, in number i we have : ^ See number of cases per school, p. SS- TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP Not Weighted A 332 B 417 C 004 E 546 Weight 71 Weighted 996 834 004 1092 The average of the not-weighted is 325 ; of the weighted, 366. The difiference is but httle, but the latter is taken to be nearer the true average. Vacant places in the tabular view indicate the absence of the marks needed for such correlations in those schools. TABLE VI ■Sz 3 4 5 s-i 5-2 6 6-1 6-2 7 7-1 7-i 8 8-1 8-2 9 13 14 IS 16 17 xS 19 20 Subjects correlated with Teaching, Psychology Hist. &Prin. of Education ** Professional " Practice Teaching Mathematics Methods Academic Preparatory Exam.*- Science Methods Academic Preparatory Exam.-- History Methods Academic Preparatory £xam.>* English Methods Academic Preparatory Exam.<> Modern Language "Methods" " Academic " Practice Teach. & Meth.- Practice Teach. & Acad.- General Average Art Manual Training Gymnasium (City Examination) History & Principles Methods Total (Exam.) A B c D E F G H I J K X Y 332 417 004 000 546 366 366 209 374 -039 233 495 -139 241 279 273 431 oitj 241 W8 002 2^6 43» 100 451 46S 025 285 386 221 250 293 -116 -017 010 049 310 279 084 114 280 .58 133 >63 133 361 271 217 009 120 140 402 015 037 274 124 215 145 297 145 004 383 442 051 -130 116 349 013 206 09S lOS 233 .64 233 3S3 381 030 -119 135 JSI 453 304 044 -028 118 225 261 .89 321 189 2B0 423 420 -02s oog 140 035 473 241 otJU 213 245 219 291 224 359 054 -021 293 251 225 326 366 -076 -016 -001 -087 -224 160 -045 257 298 251 22s 31s 286 i6a 160 141 4l3 314 36IS 443 200 I7J 297 179 164 279 353 26S 32> 277 333 160 160 141 32IS -187 ti6 -034 176 ^2 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE yi— Continued Xi 21 22 23 24 i 29 30 Subjects correlated with Practice Teaching Psychology Educational Psy. • . . Psy. & Educ. Psy. . Hist. & Prin. of Ed. "Professional" .... Mathematics Science History English Methods A C D F H I J 386 444 451 517 240 350 370 280 3«« 343 334 189 427 5«i 063 104 364 210 527 395 276 536 346 556 332 382 381 416 31 "Professional" A 571 correlated with B 469 Methods C 689 D 436 E 64s H 453 I 721 J 324 Special for school H 32 Average secondary and average in Training School 278 33 Average secondary and examination (city) 254 34 Average in Training School and examination (city) 443 35 "Professional" in Train. Sch. and examination (city) 408 36 Instruction and Discipline (city marks) 654 2. General View of the Correlations. In considering the relation between teaching and scholar- ship in the various subjects, it is seen that the correlation is of a very wide range, from .568 in 3 E, to — .224 in 18 H ; but that the general run is low. The average of the aver- ages in column X is .176. This may be more accurately expressed in the following series and the corresponding fre- quencies. The 92 relationships made with teaching, as eries. Frequency. SS I SO 2 45 8 40 6 35 8 30 7 25 8 20 6 TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 73 given in the tabular view (table VI), may be arranged in 16 groups, each covering .05, as indicated in the series. (These do not include school K, the data for which were secured after these calculations were made.) Series. Frequency. IS 6 10 4 5 2 o 22 —5 3 — 10 7 —15 I — 20 I Here the narrow mode is at .00, i. e., no correlation, while eiven a larger mode covering half the cases lies between .00 and .337. The average is .18 and the median .175. Ac- cording to Spearman,^ a " probable error " of .05 may be admitted in the correlations. Further, if the quotient found by dividing the index of correlation by the " probable error " equals 5 or more, it is practically certain that the relation is not one of mere chance. In case the quotient is 5, chance occurrence is only i out of 1,249.^ Now if the upper limit of the mode covering slightly more than half the cases is only .337, and the probable error is about .05, we have not a very favorable condition in the corre- lations.' The 26 relations made with practice teaching show a higher correlation. Here the range is from .581 to .063, expressed in the following series of 12 groups : * American Journal of Psychology, xv, loi. 2 American Journal of Psychology, xv, 76. 3 Several were figured out showing probable error often high, making quotient much less than 5. 74 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Series. Frequency. Series. Frequency 60 2 30 2 SS 2 25 I SO I 20 3 45 3 IS 40 3 10 35 8 s I Here the important mode is .35. The average is .365. The significance of these higher correlations will be con- sidered later. A few comparisons with other correlations are interest- ing and suggestive.^ English History Science Algebra Drawing German French Latin Av. (without drawing) J3 >. u S fci ui "So S c v ft S K W ffi m < o 62 58 55 15 62 56 38 10 5« 56 40 33 55 38 40 20 15 10 33 20 65 49 62 52 06 49 58 48 68 30 62 43 54 54 01 S8 51 53 51 16 1 1 -g 65 49 62 52 06 33 38 49 49 58 48 68 30 33 51 62 43 54 54 01 38 50 Here the range is from .65 down to .01, with an average of about .46. Other correlations between various acad- emic subjects, given in Thorndike's Educational Psychol- ogy, on page 37, are slightly lower than the ones just quoted. These comparisons are cited here merely to point out more emphatically the low correlation found in the relation between teaching efficiency and the various branches of study and examinations taken in preparation for that work. 1 A study by Parker of 245 first-year high school students, quoted by Thomdike in his Educational Psychology, p. 36. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 75 It may not be surprising to note that in the most favorable case — Teaching and " Professional " in school E — teaching ability and ability in psychology as taught there are iden- tical to the extent shown by a coefficient of .56; but it is certainly surprising that in the history of education, as given in school H, there is a negative correlation to the extent of .224; and perhaps even more surprising that the MODE including about half the number of all the cases lies between no correlation at all and .337. The significance of these low correlations must be considered later. We should note also another general aspect .of these cor- relations. Column X in the tabular view gives the aver- ages of the correlations for the various subjects through the different schools (I and J have no correlation with teach- ing). It is obvious that these amounts are greatly reduced by reason of the low correlations of the two schools, C and H, and somewhat modified by the fluctuations in school F. School C is one of the five State Normal Schools (A, B, C, D, E), but school H is a city training school. It may be well to note the changes in the average correlations when schools H and F are omitted from consideration, for the following reasons : School H is not of exactly the same class as the others. I need not enter into a careful differentiation between state Normal Schools and city training schools. No estimate of their relative worth is here implied, but even a slight con- sideration will show that the students are different — one class coming from the state at large, the other from a much more limited area. Their previous training and experience probably makes the age of the former class higher than the latter, and age at this period is an important factor. That the one school is not of the same class as the other is fur- ther seen in that the character of the work of the city train- ing school is usually more closely related to the high school 76 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION work of that city and its work is thus directed to a more narrow field. The low correlations in this school are perhaps due to the peculiar markings in teaching. For example, in the data for 3 H we find that, out of 154 cases considered, 56, or more than one-third, are put in one class, according to the mark for teaching efficiency. This in itself would not be so bad were the others distributed according to the normal frequency curve. Here is the series: 11, 8, 10, 16, 18, 28, 56, 6, I. Evidently there is a marked skew. The char- acter of these markings will be considered more at length later, but it is evident that the presence of a constant error will allow this school to be set aside from the five Normal Schools. School F gives records of a very special class of college graduates only. This is sufficient to set it aside for the present. Omitting schools F and H, we have in column Y the averages for the five State Normal Schools. (The aver- ages are again computed by weighting the individual cor- relation according to the number of cases considered. ) The correlations are now raised in all the subjects, when H and F are omitted, except one. No. 12; and these averages in column Y are possibly better representatives of the true relations. But the elimination of one other school also may be de- sirable. It is noted above that the correlations for school C are very low. An examination 'of the data from this school reveals a peculiar characteristic, which is perhaps the reason for the low correlation. It must be said that it is to be regretted that not more cases were available in this school ; yet the peculiar characteristic is so pronounced that it is not probable that a larger number would relieve the situation. Take, for example, number i C. Of the 54 TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 77 cases studied 20, or more than one-third, are in the highest class with respect to teaching efficiency; while on the side of standing in psychology, 27, or just one-half, are in the lowest grade. The following table (VII) taken from the data from school C shows the strange character. TABLE VII, Number in Number in Tabu number Number of casts highest Erode of lowest grade of teaching efficiency various subjects I 54 20 27 2 52 19 9 3 52 19 9 4 54 20 16 S 43 17 12 s-i 46 17 IS 6 6-1 47 17 14 7 7-1 SO 18 4 8 54 20 26 8-1 53 19 7 10 54 20 14 II 54 20 2 12 54 20 6 13 54 20 I IS 51 19 13 16 37 14 3 The striking double skewness here will call for further consideration later ; but this is sufficient to make it desirable to consider the average correlations, omitting this school. The correlation in school D lacks the more constant char- acter seen in schools A, B, and E. The marks given here for teaching efficiency are somewhat peculiar. Yet the error is not so great but that it may for the present be con- sidered with the other three Normal Schools. If now the correlations in the four schools A, B, D, E, be averaged, as before, we have the correlation of column 78 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Z. ( I D has practically no correlation, but is omitted here by reason of its peculiar character. The correlations for 5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, are necessarily reduced to the single aver- age of the two schools B and D. ) The numbers in column Z stand as the highest correlations we have between effi- ciency in teaching and scholarship in the various subjects in the Normal Schools. 3. More Specific Considerations with Discussion. After this general view, we may turn to the consideration of more specific relations. It is not our purpose to consider here all the relations presented in the data, but only a few of the more important. (i) Teaching and practice teaching. The tabular view (Table VI) shows the highest cor- relation to be between efficiency in teaching and practice teaching in the training schools (.443). The averages, as shown in columns X, Y and Z, show practice teaching high- est in all cases save three. These exceptions are in column X, where the index is .285. But this is obviously due to the exceptionally low correlation in school H, viz : .025. Omitting this school because of its peculiarities spoken of above, practice teaching heads the list. Notice further the relations of practice teaching and scholarship in various subjects, as given in 21 to 30. Here, in most cases, the correlation is higher. Note particularly the high correlations between practice teaching and " meth- ods." It would probably be expected that the relation be- tween efficiency in practice teaching and scholarship in vari- ous subjects would be closer than that between actual teach- ing and those subjects; primarily because one pair is within the same institution under similar conditions, while the TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 79 other, actual teaching, involves much more complicated con- ditions. The difference, however, as indicated by the correlations, is significant. It means that the professional studies and special methods in the various subjects in the Normal Schools contribute more directly to teaching under partic- ular conditions than to the broader and more complicated work of the teacher. The higher correlation (.416) for methods and practice teaching compared with that for methods and actual teaching (.327) suggests that these methods are probably made to fit the particular practice teaching, and not the general work required later. 14 and 34 show a much more striking illustration of this same trait. In that case, we have the total work of the school correlating high with the special test in examination (.443), but exceedingly low in the more general and rigid test in actual teaching ( — .087). Just so in the Normal Schools. The various subjects of study seem to contribute much to efficiency in practice teaching, but considerably less to actual teaching; but the correlation between practice teach- ing and actual teaching is again comparatively high. This means that there is an element in the former that contrib- utes directly to the latter. Compare the correlations of i to 20 with those of 21 to 36. It is very clear that the former are lower than the latter. Tables i to 20 compare actual teaching with vari- ous subjects and examinations. Tables 21 to 36 compare various subjects within the school work. This means that these subjects do not relate to life as they relate to one an- other. School work is not as closely related to the work the teacher is later called upon to do as it should be. Practice teaching is more closely related to it than are the theoretical studies. 8o NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION The significance of this is that more practice teaching is needed in the training of teachers. It is also suggested that this practice teaching be as near normal as possible; that is, that it be done under conditions as similar as possible to those of actual teaching. Schools of practice, as such, are liable to be unnatural and abnormal in some particular; and to that extent will be like the various subjects in the curriculum, of comparatively low correlation with actual teaching. (2) Teaching and "professional" studies. Next to practice teaching and ranking close to it is psy- chology (.418). With this should be considered what I have called professional studies : history of education, prin- ciples of education, school economy, etc. These, taken with psychology, have a correlation of .336. An observation of the work in " psychology " given in the Normal Schools shows clearly that this is not the ana- lytic study conducted in colleges and universities. It con- sists rather in more general studies in human nature. School E shows a high correlation between teaching and psychology (.546). But the avowed aim in that particular work is not introspective analysis, but a broader outlook upon human nature, and especially child nature. The significance here is the emphasis upon the contribu- tion by those subjects that give breadth of view and general principles. The correlation here is higher than that in par- ticular subjects. The latter give more specific helps; the former, more general enrichment. The data at hand seem to be in support of the position that the student who is pre- paring for teaching needs to pursue such work as will lead him to recognize and study the larger educational problems, particularly work that will tend to mature him in thought. Most of the 1,185 teachers here considered were probably TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP gl not more than twenty years of age when these school rec- ords were made. Lack of maturity was probably their greatest handicap in their early teaching. There can be little doubt, I think, that these professional studies tend to develop a maturity in the prospective teacher which the work in particular subjects does not. (3) "Methods" and "academic" work. Normal Schools have been known for their emphasis upon specific methods. Many Normal School gpraduates are subjected to grave criticism for their use of cut-and-dried methods. Much of this criticism is doubtless unwarranted, yet there seems occasion for some such attitude. The fact of the immaturity of the prospective teacher spoken of in the previous paragraph is probably a reason for this " method " work. With this there is a common criticism that these same teachers are deficient in a knowledge of subject-matter — that their academic work is weak. " Too much method work, too little academic work," is a frequent comment. The question just here is : " What is the relation of their contributions to teaching efficiency in the elementary schools ?" As said in the opening of this chapter, the case is probably different from that among high school teachers. Taking those schools where marks were obtainable in both methods and academic work, we can arrange these marks for comparison. 82 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Difference Methods Academic in favor of Academic .250 .293 + .043 -.n6 -.017 +.099 .010 .049 +•039 .084 .114 +.030 .271 .217 -.054 .120 .140 + .020 .037 .274 +.137 .383 .442 +.059 —.130 .116 +.246 .013 .206 +•193 •473 .381 -.052 .030 —.119 —.149 .135 • 151 +.084 .044 —.028 — .072 Thus in the fourteen such cases, ten are in favor of the academic work. Tlie dififerences are, of course, very slight. The averages shown in column Z (page 71) for 10 and 11 show a slight difference in favor of the method work (the correlations are .327 and .277 for the four Normal Schools only; for all the schools the correlations are .245 and .219). In school H 5 to II page 71 are given correlations in the academic work done in the high school. With one ex- ception, that of English (8, no academic), the correlations for the academic work are higher than for the methods. Yet it must be said that the differences either way are not great. In consideration of the stress so often laid upon the need of methods, it is important to note how closely related to this is the academic work in the various subjects. In view of these facts, there seems less occasion to give instruction in specific methods. And it is suggested that the two phases of the work be given about equal attention; or that, if the academic work is made a prerequisite to the work in the training school, most of the time in the latter be given to the professional studies or to more advanced academic work. TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 83 Data from school H suggest further need of more acad- emic work, either as a prerequisite or as a part of the reg- ular work. In 34 it is seen that the training-school work prepares for examinations, as indicated by the correlation .443; but 14 indicates that it does not prepare for actual teaching, the correlation being — .087. It is to be noted fur- ther that in this same group (33) the academic work in the secondary school does not prepare so well for examinations (the correlation is .254), but that it does prepare even better for teaching (the correlation being .213). It must be said that the marks in teaching for group H are subject to severe criticism, to be pointed out later. For this reason less reliance can be placed upon these figures. So far as they go, however, they would lead us to put more emphasis upon academic work and less on the special methods. (4) Civil service examinations as a test of the capacity to teach. Civil service examinations for the purpose of testing the applicant's qualifications for public service have been used in all countries. Tliat examinations serve to stimulate effort to make sufficient preparation, and also to eliminate the un- qualified, will be questioned by few. Such examinations are also applied to test the qualifications of teachers in pub- lic schools. The problem here is : " Do the data at hand justify such examinations ? Do they test the efficient teachers and elim- inate the unqualified?" The only answer at hand is in the correlations between efficiency in teaching and ability in various examinations, in three groups : G, H, and K. Two groups represent graduates of two city institutions prepar- ing students for teaching; the third consists of teachers from three cities in Ohio. The records are 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, 18, 19, 20. (See Table VI.) §4 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION The correlations in i8, 19, and 20, for schools G and H, are negative, with one exception; and yet so little negative as to be practically zero; i. e., no correlation. If compar- ison is made with other correlations in school H (3 to 10) it will be seen that these also are practically zero. Thus these city examinations, though limited to the two subjects, history and principles of education and methods of in- struction, correspond quite closely to the work in that city training school. With this lack of correlation between the examinations and ability to teach, there would seem to be no justification for such civil service tests. Yet there is certainly about the same justification as for the work of the training school. As will be pointed out soon, the marks for teaching efficiency from schools G and H are such as must be used with care (see page 92). Referring to the correlations in school K, somewhat dif- ferent relations are found. Mathematics (which means Arithmetic only), .280, is higher than all other correlations for this subject with two exceptions, and is somewhat higher than the averages as seen in columns X, Y, and Z. Science and history fall considerably below the averages in those subjects, and English compares no more favorably. This means that the work done in history, science, and English in the training schools contributes more to effi- ciency in teaching than the knowledge of these subjects as tested by the local examinations. And the correlation in mathematics is not so high as to lend much argument in its favor. Thus the data here used do not afford much justification for examinations as a test for capacity to teach. First, the indices of correlation are in themselves rather low, ranging from .280 to .095, with an average of .196 for school K, while for schools G and H the correlations are distinctly negative. Again, when comparisons are made, correlations TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 85 are generally lower than for similar work in the training schools. To conclude that the present system of examina- tions is not an adequate selective agency in providing effi- cient teachers for our elementary schools, is not warranted because of the original inaccuracies of the data here studied. Yet the facts, so far as they go, seem to point in that direc- tion. Here is the whole problem of the value of set exam- ination to test qualifications. To solve it, data much more complete and accurate are necessary. (5) Manual arts. Only two schools, C and E, gi\'e measures of ability in the manual arts. These are too meager for much argu- ment. But it is interesting to note how favorably the cor- relations compare with others in the same school. No argu- ment is needed to show how ability in fine arts, in manual training, including domestic science and domestic art, and in gymnastic work, contributes to efficient teaching in ele- mentary schools. The few facts presented in 15. 16 and 17 support this position. All the foregoing conclusions are subject to amendment by more accurate data. At the time of the collection of the measures from the 1,185 students the magnitude of the attenuation of correlation produced by chance inaccuracies in the original measures was not recognized by statisticians. In view of Spearman's study of correlation, I should, if I repeated this investigation, take pains to have the teaching efficiency of each person rated by several independent judges, and to obtain, wherever possible, several grades for each person in each trait of scholarship. In so far, however, as the conclusions drawn here depend upon the relative rather than the absolute magnitudes of the indices of correlation (as most of them do), they would 86 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION probably be little altered by absolutely accurate original data. I feel confident that the following statements can be made with a high degree of probability. (i) Ability in teaching and scholarship in professional schools for teachers are related, though not intimately. (2) Practice teaching is foremost in its contribution to efficiency in teaching and should be carried on in the most normal conditions possible. (3) Normal School students are doubtless in great need of those studies that tend most to mature them in thought and that suggest the larger educational problems. These are probably those which have been called " professional " studies. (4) Methods courses do not involve the ability required in teaching to any greater extent than more general profes- sional courses or than academic studies proper. (5) In so far as we can accept the formally expressed opinions of school principals with respect to teaching effi- ciency, written examinations are an inadequate means of licensing and promoting teachers, and are less useful than their records in college or training school. Such an investigation as this could be made with ease and surety if professional schools for teachers gave rational grades in scholarship and kept accurate records of the suc- cess in teaching of their graduates. How far the existing records are from this is worth knowing and is the topic of the next section. (6) Methods of grading. In this section I shall make some severe criticisms of the methods of grading in vogue in Normal Schools. This does not, however, mean that Normal Schools are specially at fault. High school, college, and perhaps civil service TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 87 gradings will probably be found upon examination to be equally thoughtless. One who examines the marks used by individual teachers and principals, the marks in various schools and in different states, is quickly led to the conclusion that there is no uni- form measure and seemingly no effort to work together. Each uses his own method, which is supposed to be adapted to a particular purpose determined by the locality and char- acter of the school. But if marks are of any service, they are not simply a record for the individual, but must serve as a communicable measure. And this seems the greatest service. Marks should so measure one's mental trait that they will be intelligible to others, and also serve as a means of comparing different mental traits. To discover such a unit of measure will contribute much to educational work. The facts concerning grading found in the present study suggest two leading considerations. Many schools and teachers show a distinct tendency to mark high. As pointed out above, marks for efficiency in teaching are given by principals of Normal Schools and by principals and superintendents of schools. The character of these marks can be best seen by noting the form of distribution in various cases, as follows : I C. A B+ B B— C+ C C— D 20 5 7 I 9732 I D. 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 60, 50, 40, 25. 16, 14, 2y, I, 4, 6, 2, I, 4, I, 4. I E. A B C D E 23 41 24 10 3 Thus in school C, we have 54 teachers divided into 8 88 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION groups, but 20, or more than one-third, are ranked in the highest class. In school D, 80 teachers are ranked in 1 1 groups. One- fifth of these are given a top-most grade of 100, usually re- garded as a perfect mark. 57, or more than seven-tenths of the number, are in the three upper grades. In school E, loi teachers are divided into five classes. Almost one- fourth are in the first-class; not far from one- half are in the second class. In schools C and D the median line lies between the second and third highest classes; in school E between the first and second. In school G, using a scale of four divisions. A, B, C, D, 95 teachers are distributed in three classes, A having 2, B having 92, and C having i. In school H, using the same system as school G, of 150 teachers, 11 are placed in rank A, one in rank C, and the remainder in rank B. In school I the median mark for practice teaching lies between 97.5 and 98 per cent., the range of distribution lying between 99.5 and 78. In this school most of the marks in the vari- ous subjects lie above 90, on the old basis of 100 per cent. Such use of a commonly accepted system of grading tends to destroy the value of that system.' This probably means a false estimate of the mental trait in question. Little children are encouraged by a grade of 100 per cent, on a piece of work, and it may be policy to give the grade. But to class one-fifth of a group of teachers in the top rank, marked 100, is doubtless beyond the facts which school men would wish to express. And to class one-half the group in the first one, two, or even three grades when eight or more grades are used is probably not what is wished, if the one who is measuring these mental traits stops to consider what he is doing. The distribution is often absurdly eccentric. Thomdike, in the third chapter of his Edticational Psy- TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 89 chology, points out that the distribution of mental traits follows a regular law, except when these traits are influenced by some natural selection. This law is that of the normal frequency curve. Paying no attention to the mathematical accuracy involved, this normal distribution says roughly that at the upper and lower limits of the trait in question there are very few cases : that the number of cases increase, on each side equally, as one approaches the center or median of that trait : that at this point the larger number of cases are to be found. Entirely aside from any technical lan- guage this merely means that in the ability to solve alge- braic problems among a thousand first-year high school students there \\i\\ be a large number of mediocre ability: then on each side, for better and for worse, there will be a distribution about equal: that at the two extremes there will be but very few, say two or three of first-class ability, and at the other end of the scale, as many of scarcely any algebraic ability. Such is the normal frequency we have reason to expect when we know of no disturbing agency. Even a glance at the tables of distribution used in this study shows that they deviate much from the law just mentioned. A 'few tables will be illustrative. ' The first deviation from the law is what I may term bunching: and first, bunching at the extremes. The fol- lowing distributions are illustrative: 6B : I, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, I, 4, 3, 7, 6, 7, 5, 6, 9, 9, 6, 17. 5C: 17, 3, 6, I, 7, S. 2, 2. 4C: 3, I, I, 5, I, 9, 2, I, I, 5, I, I, 5, I, I, 16. 13D: 18, 14, 30, I, 5, 5, 2, I, 5, I, 5. 7E: 25,6, 10,30,8, I, II, 3. Here are three cases where the bunching is at the upper extreme, and two cases where the large group is at the lower extreme. Both cases are improbable, unnatural, and quite likely not really desired by the one giving the marks. po NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Another case of bunching is at intervals in the distribu- tions. For example: SA: I, 4, I, 5, 2, 20, 2, 7, lo, 4, 23, 4, 8, 14, 3, 21, 6, 3, 2, 8, 2. 7B : I, I, 2, I, I, 3, I, 7, I, I, I, 9, I, I, 6. 4C : 3, I, I, 5, I, 9, 2, I, I, 5, I, I, 5, I, I, 16. 8-iD: 16, 9, 31, 12, 18. 7E: 25,6, 10,30,8, I, 11,3. Here the bunching is probably due to the tendency to use more frequently certain marks than others. 80, 85, and 90 are more readily used than 83, 87, 91. In 5A, the greater frequencies are seen to be at intervals of five. Likewise, A, B, C, are more readily given then A — , B+, C+. Both these cases of bunching are in all probability due to carelessness or indifiference in grading, rather than the pres- ence of some selective agency. The presence of a selective agency would disturb the normal frequency, and one might then expect a regular grouping, due to the disturbing cause. This, then, means that the marks given are not precise meas- urements of the trait in question : but are rather mere ex- cuses for the desired grading. A second case of the distribution not being normal is that which is so conspicuous in schools G and H. Here the distribution lies between A and C, though with the use of the scale A, B, C, D, but with almost all the cases in B. This necessitated an arbitrary further distribution into ten grades, as seen in all the tables for schools H and G. Even with the attempted improvement, the number of cases under B is too large to allow any suggestion of a normal distribution. The very fact that the marks found were almost wholly of grade B is plain evidence that little or no discrimination was used in giving these grades. It was only with much patient search that even a score of C TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 91 grade teachers could be found among many hundred, and only two or three of D grade. This evident lack of discrimination' calls in question the use of marks at all. Marks are intended to be measures of mental traits. Measurement implies the presence of dif- ferences. Now classing individuals in large groups in the methods just pointed out means a lack of discrimination, — or it may be a fear to express one's own convictions. In either case, or in any case, such use of marks is destructive to the whole system. They lose their significance. Men must soon cease to have any confidence in them as meas- ures : for they do not measure. The study of these marks leads to certain suggestions or recommendations as to the nature of grading individuals, of measuring their mental traits. (i) Grading should be by relative position. It is im- possible to use the present system as an absolute measure. One can not say that the individual stands 100 per cent, in history, 90 per cent, or 83/^ per cent. An individual men- tal trait is too intangible and too variable to be submitted to that kind of measurement. Strength can be measured by the pound-weight : swiftness of foot, by the distance per minute, but scholarship in mathematics or history is really to be measured by its relative position in a group with which it can be compared. We might, for example, referring to the series of marks below, say of these 147 teachers : " Six of them stand in the fore-front, without making a discrim- ination among these six. There are ten others so near alike that we may give them second rank compared with Grade 95 9° 85 80 75 70 65 60 50 4° Frequency 6 10 31 24 31 28 8 S 3 i the best six. In the succeeding lower ranks are the groups 31, 24, 31, 28, 8, 5, 3, I. In this case the six set the stand- Q2 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION ard of measurement, by which others stand or fall." Or we might begin at the lower extreme and take the single man in this case as the standard, and measure all the others upward. But the best man or the poorest man does not serve well as the standard for comparison. This should rather be the central tendency of the group. This should serve as the standard, and the better and worse be measured by their deviations from the central tendency. Thus we measure individuals in a group by their deviations from the central tendency in respect to a particular trait. This is far preferable to an imagined absolute measure. The per cent method of grading and the letter method, if properly used, are really measures by relative position. John should be marked 80, not because that number expresses his de- gree of mentality, but because he is slightly above the larger portion of the class, the average of which is rather arbitrarily placed at, say 75. In this way we are measuring the in- dividuals of a group in terms of a function of that group. (2) The range of distribution should be comparatively wide. In schools G and H, the distribution is in three groups, though on a scale of four. Yet in these two schools, there is practically no distribution : that is, almost all cases are put into one group, B. Here is an extreme case of almost non-discrimination. One step removed from this extreme is that of two groups. These two may stand for the satisfactory and the unsatisfactory groups. And this is a very practical division. A principal or superintendent may, for his immediately practical purposes, divide his teachers into the satisfactory and the unsatisfactory classes. The one, he retains; the other, he dismisses. The eighth grade teacher, at the close of the year, may divide her fifty pupils into two groups ; forty are satisfactory and are passed into the high school : the ten are unsatisfactory and are retained. This is the mere act of accepting and re- TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 93 jecting. There are times when a carpenter may direct that a pile of lumber may be divided into two classes : that which is two or more inches in thickness, and that which is less. The former he can use; the latter is not wanted. But his various labors soon ask for finer measures and there are many practical purposes to be accomplished through a closer discrimination. A merchant asks the prin- cipal of a school for his two most capable boys in figuring. The one most capable in the class is valedictorian ; the next most capable presents the salutation in the closing exercises of the school : there are prizes and honors (and dishonors) to be distributed according to the standing of the individuals in class. These are practical purposes to be met by a closer discrimination between the mental traits of the pupils of the school. There is also a new demand for this finer measurement of mentality. Students of education in their study of prob- lems pertaining to school work are in need of these facts. The problem of educational values, e. g., does the study of Latin enable the pupil to accomplish more in algebra, can not be answered by knowing whether or not the student " passed." A closer discrimination of his algebraic ability is necessary. All inquiry as to the relation between mental traits calls for the finer measures of mentality. The old ICO per cent basis implies a possible grouping into lOO divisions. Yet probably such a range is never used. In the data here used, the range is from loo to 15, yet there are few cases where twenty divisions are used. The number of di- visions must depend much upon the number of individuals graded, and much upon the motive in the grading. Where greater discrimination is wanted, the number of divisions must be greater. Where acceptable or non-acceptable is all that is wanted, two classes are sufficient. Further, where the number of individuals is small, the number of groups 54 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION will be small. In school D, scholarship in the various sub- jects is marked by the three measures i, 2, 3. In the tables for this school, these three grades are expanded into five by the method of averages used, and even this means little discrimination where a hundred or more individuals are involved. The range of distribution should be sufficiently wide that one may be able to locate at least the extreme 10 per cent : that is, it would be well to be able to speak definitely of the best 10 per cent and of the poorest. In the use of only three divisions, this would necessitate 80 per cent in the middle class. Here is too little discrimination. It would be well to be able to speak of half the class grouped about the median grade. Retaining our 10 per cent ex- tremes, this would call for at least five groups, viz. : 10, 15, 50, 15 and 10 per cents. But to throw half of the whole number into one group is to measure very roughly that group, and it is also desirable that the extremes be less than ID per cent: for one would wish to know the one, two, or three most capable boys in a school of 50 pupils. It would seem then that at least seven or nine divisions should be used, in case of even as few as twenty individuals. More than fifteen or eighteen grades become cumbersome and call for closer discrimination than is probably needed. The 100 per cent method of marking, so commonly used, is usually assumed to be an absolute measure — a certain per cent of perfection being the measure. Difficulties here are evident. Foremost of all is the fact that no work ever really merits a perfect mark. (3) The normal curve of distribution should serve as the standard. This normal course, as pointed out earlier, means simply — that, under normal conditions, of the members of a large group a considerable portion will be nearly equal in a given trait, and will represent the central tendency of TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 95 the group. Above and below, for better and for worse, other members are about equally distributed: at the two extremes are to be found only comparatively few, repre- senting the very best and the very poorest. Psychology D, table VII, is not at all normal : and is probably not a just rating. It is probably not true that the great majority are at the very top. In actual application, the teacher would need first to decide upon the number of groups to make, according to the suggestion made above. Then pick out those of mediocre ability for the median class. The others are to be distributed above and below. In using this method, one must be careful not to follow it too rigidly. A perfectly normal distribution is probably not possible. 3, 5, 12, 20, 38, 20, 12, 5, 3 is expected to be somewhat altered. Yet this is a type to which all groups doubtless do tend. This method seeks the natural course, in two particulars : ( I ) Mental ability is really judged by no absolute standard, but by relation to the same kind of ability in other individ- uals. (2) Most of such abilities are neither very good nor very bad, but have what is known as the normal curve of distribution. That the suggestions made above concern a real issue is abundantly proven by the following table (Table VII) which gives some 60 samples taken at random of the grades used in the present study. The scales for these grades are given at the left of the table. 96 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE VII SAMPLES OF GRADES GIVEN IN NORMAL SCHOOLS < w" U PQ m c •1 ^ J3 J3 §3 o •o ■g g2 "3 •g "3 •g PQ ho e 1 u bo C u g H u 1 ti •1 5 < 1 >, >> >i Rl <» ^ rt to m (4 i« rt tj CO IP (A en Ph E^ ffi S e^ S (£ Ph £ § § S 100 99 s \ 98 I 6 I 2 97 2 96 2 95 I 4 14 2 5 6 4 3 10 94 I I 2 I I I 93 2 4 I 3 I I 2 92 s 7 s 6 I I S I 8 91 I I 3 3 2 2 I 90 4 13 13 38 7 9 6 2 3 20 5 24 89 I 2 2 6 4 2 2 I I 88 14 IS 6 '9 2 6 3 7 5 5 87 5 10 6 3 I S 10 86 2 8 3 9 5 2 4 I 4 85 4 II 4 S 13 10 4 4 i8 7 23 7 I 16 84 13 3 2 5 2 7 4 3 6 3 83 II S S I 6 3 9 3 8 I 6 I 82 2 7 6 S 6 5 II 4 14 5 7 9 81 2 4 5 2 I 3 7 80 12 6 3 7 17 7 4 4 25 5 10 21 12 70 19 79 S I 3 I 4 21 7 15 3 78 '5 4 5 7 I 2 I 19 3 29 6 12 20 9 77 i6 3 2 2 I I 6 3 25 3 4 24 I 76 9 6 6 3 4 I 30 2 S 25 7 75 S3 4 27 7 9 2 IS I 36 8 18 20 3 74 6 I 2 5 73 7 2 I 7 72 I I I I 71 I 70 S I 2 2 I 69 68 I 67 66 65 I 64 63 62 61 60 I IS I iSS 150 92 155 ~N~ 147 97 54 97 144 103 52 Is 151 45 131 TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP TABLE Vll— Continued 97 W u bo bo > di W c ■|5 W c o W JO 13 W {li o l5 bo o 6 d bo C IS 1 0) •8 1 1 o s "3 u a IS 1 ^ H W 1^ S W § 3 K tu H £ CM i^ ^ 15 A 20 23 i8 12 39 19 i6 i8 25 19 14 7 10 9 8 19 A— 30 i6 27 30 b 21 21 S+ S 24 23 5 II 24 10 25 4 23 B 7 41 i8 31 35 6 13 i8 30 i8 7 32 i8 24 41 19 B— I 7 7 I 12 7 8 9 I 6 9.+ 9 2 8 9 12 2 I 4 6 1 c 7 24 4 22 7 8 II 5 3 II 20 19 13 13 c— 3 3 3 I 3 3 I I D+ D 2 10 I 2 I I 4 S 2 D— E+ E 3 2 I 3 N 54 lOI 102 1 01 97 52 100 102 94 lOI 37 53 53 57 67 102 1-^ it 1—, d l-% ^ « s o3 5 s •-> J3 ^ c%l CO (U 2 ^ (^ 1 1 1^ .2 =3, A 7 I I 2 3 4 7 A-B 9 3 8 2 3 I I 4 B 13 31 28 2 II 8 12 29 B-C 10 9 10 I 3 3 9 25 C i6 10 IS 9 21 24 21 39 C-D 6 2 2 4 3 7 16 D 3 5 2 3 4 4 6 13 D-E I I 3 3 E 4 I I 7 N 64 62 67 24 49 50 60 140 98 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE Vll— Continued ffi p M P < bo o t>0 W bo Q bo W J3 c '£ 2 Is C ^ 1 E H 6 •s a >x ct rt Si M r* Id H H K H H s § p^ s 100 i6 II 2 15 II 19 21 95 6 14 10 17 3 14 22 5 14 13 90 10 27 24 32 3 32 19 12 31 30 85 31 I 10 o I 13 i6 I 3 80 24 4 4 i8 4 4 12 i6 4 14 75 31 6 S 7 8 6 2 22 b 4 70 28 2 I 9 7 2 s 10 2 7 65 8 2 2 2 27 4 60 5 I s 3 I I 10 I 2 55 I II 50 3 4 5 2 6 S 12 5 I 45 I I 40 I I I 2 35 30 I 25 4 4 s 6 2 15 I N 147 8o 64 io6 42 86 87 ISO 89 io6 P bo (3 s P a o 1 P bo .S P en U 1 R u to P P "So P Ui o P c 7 5 21 S 29 IS 13 17 4 28 5 II 21 5 29 IS 13 14 21 II 21 3^ II 14 14 23 27 14 5 10 8 23 i8 i6 9 31 12 i8 9 19 31 21 4 19 13 12 8 7 N 83 65 83 io6 88 . 83 64 86 84 59 TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 99 I regret that it is impossible for me to print here in full the original data from each of the 1185 teachers' records, and their correlation tables showing the detailed facts for each of the 140 coefficients calculated. To do so would re- quire some hundred pages of tables. I append a few sample tables which give the details in the case of some of the important relationships. In the nine tables that follow the scale of grading for teaching is given at the left of each table; that for the sub- ject correlated with teaching, at the top. The figures in the body of the table show the distribution of all the individuals studied and, by their position, indicate the standing for each individual in the two subjects comr pared. At the right and bottom are the sums of the several arrays. It should be said that in the first two tables (schools H and G) the scale at the left was originally A, B, C, D, though only A, B, C, was actually used, i cor- responds to A; 2-7 to B ; 8-10 to C. Thus in the first table II teachers are graded A; 136, B; and 7, C. The B and C grades were scattered by taking into account the + and — marks upon some of the grades. lOO NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION ^ ^0_ ._ « «^ - COM .r g'cyUM Wl-i>0 2 S8 00 55 3; »ilM<»)>h>r)0O>g "1 TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP loi TABLE VIII (3) TABLE VIII (4) SCHOOLS A, B 1, C AND E SCHOOLS A , B, C, D AND E Teaching and Psychology Teaching and "Professional" 1 2 J 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1 10 II 7 28 1 17 14 4 4 I 40 2 16 21 4 3 44 2 20 20 14 4 S8 3 12 30 13 7 I 63 3 24 47 27 14 6 118 t 21 42 77 17 S 162 4 12 40 38 14 8 112 5 2 S 18 II 4 40 5 ID 20 30 II 5 76 6 4 7 2 5 18 <5 S 7 II 7 7 37 7 10 II 8 II 4 44 7 3 4 9 8 I 25 71 124 134 51 19 399 91 152 133 62 28 466 TABLE VIII (5) SCHOOL A Teaching and Methods in English 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 M 50 40 94 1 I 93 I I 92 I I 2 90 2 3 3 3 7 I 14 89 I I 88 5 3 I I ID 87 I I 2 4 86 2 2 85 I 4 ID 6 I 8 I I 32 84 I 2 I I 5 83 I 2 2 2 I I [9 82 I I I 2 S 80 2 2 4 4 7 6 2 2 29 79 I I 78 I 1 I I 2 6 77 I I 2 76 I I 75 3 7 3 2 I 16 73 I I 70 2 I I 4 68 I I 67 1 I 55 I I 6 II 36 24 30 28 9 S 4 I IS4 I02 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION « N N M •* PI M N 00 as =0 M -S HI W fO CI M ro M 0\ l-l M t-t »-( t-t hi O* I lO M TT 1-1 " N o«oiO\0>oeoooo«QojiioojoociQSo(Ci^(^tS:S} TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 103 TABLE VIII (7) SCHOO IL C Teaching and Methods in English A B-t- B B- c+ C C- D 95 I I 2 I 5 90 7 I I I 10 89 I I 85 2 I I I 5 80 2 I 2 I 6 79 I I 75 8 4 S I 2 3 2 I 26 20 S 7 I 9 7 3 2 54 TABLE VIII (8) TABLE VIII (9) SCHOOL , D SCHOOL E Teaching and Methods in English Teaching and Methods in English I i-^ 2 2-3 3 A B C D E 100 I I II I 14 A 10 6 4 I 21 95 4 2 4 2 2 14 AB S 9 5 19 90 3 6 9 4 7 29 B 3 20 7 3 33 85 I I 2 BC I S 6 3 2 17 80 I I I 3 C I 2 3 I 7 75 2 I I 2 6 19 41 24 10 3 97 70 2 2 (5^ I I 5(? 2 I 2 5 ^(? I I 25 I 2 2 s 14 13 26 12 17 82 Note. — ^Criticism has been made upon this study to this effect: To establish a correlation between scholarship in psychology and ability to teach, for example, does not -show that the study of psychology con- tributes to efficiency in teaching, but only that that study serves as an eflfeotive means of selecting those who have qualities required in successful teaching. An answer to this may be iound in the quotation from Pearson given on page 61. But in either case the practical con- sequences are the same. CHAPTER V GENERAL TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS Introduction 1. The Problem. There is in New York and Massachusetts an increasing attention paid to the training of elementary teachers. New Normal Schools have been erected within the last few years and the efficiency in equipment has been much extended. Attendance upon these schools has increased to meet the de- mand. The larger cities have their own Normal Schools. Training classes in various local high schools are much en- couraged. While the graduates of these training schools are in much demand/ there is a demand in some localities for teachers who are " self-made," i. e., teachers who, in profiting by experience, have gained success. There are also a few college graduates teaching in the grades. We may well ask from what kind. of training do the most efficient teachers come. The individual and personal element must, of course, enter largely, but in the present inquiry we shall set that aside. 2. Generalisations. This is too limited a study to insure completely valid re- sults. The generalizations indicated are as follows : 1. There is a slight tendency to promote the more effi- cient teachers into the upper grades. 2. Amount of experience seems to have little influence on the degree of teaching efficiency. 3. There is no indication that the amount of secondary school training has any relation to teaching efficiency. 4. Only 3^4 per cent of the teachers studied are college 1 Yonkers, N. Y., has few teachers who are not Normal School grad- uates. 104 TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 105 graduates. These, as well as those who attended college but did not graduate, have a rank below the average in the schools in which they are teaching. 5. Normal School graduates do not stand emphatically above the average teacher. It is clear, however, that grad- uates of city training schools, and those who have not studied in pedagogical schools are somewhat inferior to the average teacher. Method I. Data Collected. For this inquiry answers were secured to the following questions : 1. In what grade are you teaching? 2. How many years have you taught ? 3. How many years did you study in the high school ? 4. How many years did you spend in college ? Did you graduate? Give the name of the college. 5. Professional work. What school did you attend ? How many years? Did you finish the course? These questions were sent to elementary schools in New York and Massachusetts, containing from 8 to 31 teachers. These teachers answered the questions, after which the prin- cipal of the school expressed his estimate of the general teaching efficiency of each teacher by grouping them accord- ing to their relative rank. For example, one principal grouped his 27 teachers as follows : First rank. Second rank. Third rank. Fourth rank. Number of Teachers • • • S 8 10 4 The data here used come from 33 schools and represent 507 teachers. With but few exceptions, each teacher an- io6 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION swered all the questions, so that the data are complete, so far as they go. 2. Regrouping. The ranking of the teachers of the 33 schools differed much in the number of groups into which the corps of teachers was divided. For example, one principal divided his teachers into a first, second and third rank. Others made 5, 8, 12, and even 22 groups. In this last group were 22 teachers, who were thus arranged in perfect serial order from the most efficient teacher to the least efficient teacher. To use all these together they must be reduced to the same number of groups. The following table (IX) shows how they were reduced to five groups. Here the principle used was that the extremes should be disturbed as little as pos- sible. Thus, in an original grouping into 10 we now have: first rank remains first rank; second and third become sec- ond rank; the fourth to the seventh become third rank; eighth and ninth become fourth rank; and the tenth be- comes fifth rank. TABLE IX TABLE OF REGROUPING. Original First Second Third Fourth Fifth Groups Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 5 2 3 4 S 6 2 3-4 5' 6 7 2 3-S 6 7 8 2 3-6 7 8 9 2-3 4-6 7-8 9 10 2-3 4-7 8-9 10 II 2-3 4-8 9-10 II 12 2-4 S-8 Q-II 12 13 2-4 5-9 10-12 13 14 2-4 5-10 II-I3 14 15 2-5 6-10 II-I4 IS 18 2-6 7-12 13-17 18 19 2-6 7-13 14-18 19 20 2-6 7-14 IS-I9 20 22 1-2 3-7 8-is 16-20 21-22 TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 107 Discussion. I. First question. Any inquiry as to in what grade the better teachers are found has really no direct bearing on the question of effi- ciency in teaching. Consideration is given to it here only for the purpose of locating the cases studied in the ques- tions following. The desire for promotion is natural in teaching as in other occupations. Just what promotion in the elementary schools means is perhaps somewhat questionable. There is a feeling among such teachers that an advance to a higher grade in the school is given in recognition of greater effi- ciency, is promotion. In some schools teachers in the higher grades are recognized as the stronger teachers and are paid accordingly. For the present purpose I have rearranged the groupings of the various schools into three groups by the method sug- gested above. The following is the table of distribution, the first grade including a few designated as kindergarten teachers : TABLE X Grades / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 44 23 17 12 17 15 15 22 8 173 2 45 16 23 27 20 18 19 12 3 183 3 32 II 19 IS II 13 5 6 112 121 50 59 54 48 46 39 40 II 468 "As a rule, the best-trained teachers, those receiving the highest salaries, should be placed in the lower primary and the upper grammar grades, while the young and inexperi- enced should be placed in the intermediate." ^ This seems like a very plausible theory and there is a little evidence of ^ J. H. Phillips, Superintendent, Birmingham, Ala. Quoted in the Report of the Chicago School Commission for 1900, p. 52. I08 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION its practice here. Table X shows the lower and upper grades to have a little better representation in the first rank, while the third to seventh grades have more of the second rank teachers. 2. Second question. What do our data indicate as to the relation of experience to relative standing in teaching efficiency? We have such questions as these: Does the teacher's standing increase with her experience, i. e., do the older teachers stand fore- most, or is there a certain amount of experience at which a teacher is in her " prime of life?" In this study I have divided the thirty-three schools into two divisions : In the first division I have rearranged into five groups all schools already in five or more groups; in the other I have arranged into three groups those schools already in three or four groups. In the former group are 387 cases; in the latter, 117 cases — making 504 cases con- sidered. The number of years' experience in teaching is given in nine groups, as follows: o, i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to 10, II to 15, 16 and over. The following table gives the distri- bution. The numbers at the top give the number of years' experience; those at the left indicate the rank of the teach- ers; the others show the individual cases in each. TABLE XI{i) TEACHING EFFICIENCY IN RELATION TO EXPERIENCE Amount of Experie^e ' Total SO 91 I 139 77 30 '■ 387 Rank /<5+ 15—11 10—6 5 4 3 2 1 / 9 16 18 2 2 I 2 2 16 16 28 10 6 4 7 4 3 16 14 SI 10 12 13 10 12 4 14 IS 18 6 3 6 5 ID 5 5 7 10 I 2 I 4 Total 60 68 125 28 24 26 2S 30 TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 109 When turned into percentages the entries in the above table give the following : TABLE XI (2) Amount of Experience Rank 16+ 13-11 10—6 5 4 3 2 I Total 1 15 23.6 14.4 7 8.3 3.8 8 13 2 26.7 23.6 22.4 3S-8 25 1S.4 28 13-3 23-5 3 26.7 20.6 40.8 35-8 SO SO 40 40 100 36 4 23.3 22 14.4 21.4 12. s 23.1 20 33-3 20 5 8.3 10.2 8 4.2 7.7 4 13.3 7-5 That is, 1 5 per cent of those who taught sixteen years or more are in the first rank; 13.3 per cent of those with one year's experience are in the lowest rank. The true standing in each group may be well seen from the median of each group; that is, the point which marks the dividing line between the better half and the poorer half in each group of teachers. These medians are calculated upon the series of five groups according to teaching effi- ciency. I omit the single case with o years' experience. 16+ 11-15 6—10 5 4 3 2 1 Totals 2.81 2.63 2.82 2.70 2.83 3. 1 1 2.8s 3.40 2.88 A treatment of the other 117 cases in three groups gives practically the same results. The following is the table of distribution : TABLE XII Amount of Experience Rank 16+ 11—15 6—10 5 4 3 2 1 Totals 1 8 9 II 4 3 2 I 38 2 6 ID 19 2 2 4 2 4 5 54 3 3 3 9 I I I 6 I 25 Totals 17 22 39 6 6 7 4 10 6 117 no NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION The medians on the basis of a series of three are as fol- lows: Experience 16+ 12-15 6—10 5 4 3 2 10 Totals Median Rank 1.58 1.70 1.Q5 1.25 1.50 1.87 2 2.66 2.10 1.88 Fig. I. From Table XI. lt+ !l-\S G-10 S 4 3 2 i (? 1 8 3 2 3 Vtom Table XII. TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 1 1 1 Figure i presents graphically the comparison of amount of experience with efficiency in teaching. The numbers at the left are the rank in teaching efficiency. The Pearson formula for the index of correlation for the 387 cases with the better grading gives .097. This would be much smaller but for the group with one year of experi- ence. Apart from that group there is practically a zero correlation. It must be said, then, in answer to the relation between experience and teaching efficiency that beyond the first year of experience it is practically nil. After the first year the amount of experience is not an important criterion for efficient teaching in the elementary schools. The im- portance of this fact, if it is confirmed by later researches, to administrators of school systems is obvious. 3. Third question. Here the question is : Is there evidence of any difference in the teaching efficiency of those who took more or less than the usual four years in high school work. That is, does a post-graduate year in the high school tend to strengthen the teachers, and will less than four years in the high school give a lower teaching efficiency? There were 429 answers to this question. Of these 12 were ambiguous in that 7, 9, 10, 12, etc., were the answers. These twelve persons evidently misunderstood the question or used " sec- ondary schools " in a sense not intended. One answered, "Don't know." Discarding these 13 replies we have 416 to be considered. Only 19 report having taken an extra year in the high school; 169 spent less than four years in the high school. Any significance in more or less than four years of high school work must be found, if at all, in the distribution of these 19 and 169 in the schools in which they are ranked. This, for the evident reason that the other 288 took the full 112 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION course, and the question here is consequently as to the more and less. If the former are found among the better of each group, there is evidence that the extra year contributes directly to teaching efficiency ; if the latter are found among the lower of each group, there is the same evidence. For the line of demarcation between the better and the worse, I have taken the median of all the cases in each school. The significance of having spent more or less than four years in high school work depends, in the second place, upon the amount of deviation from this median. That is, if the 19 who spent more than the usual four years were found in the first rank when the median is, for example, 4.5, the contri- bution of this extra year is greater than if these 19 were in the third rank. The results are as follows : Of the 19 who did extra work in the secondary schools, 9 stand above the median, 10 below. The simis of the deviations from the medians are 12.60 above and 24.46 below. Of the 169 who spent less than four years, 85 are found above the median, 84 are below. The sums of the deviations are 197.33 ^^^ 225.93 respectively. Thus, so far as these results go, there is no proof that the amount of time spent in secondary school work has a bene- ficial influence on teaching efficiency, and the evidence is that it has little or none. It may be said that with but few exceptions these 19 and 169 have done other work than the high school in preparing for teaching. There is evidence that many of the 169 took their secondary studies in the Normal Schools with their professional work. 4. Fourth question. In many parts of the country a college training is re- quired for high school teachers. The tendency in all school systems is in this direction. In contrast to this, there are only a few college graduates in the elementary schools. TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 113 The opinion has beai expressed that the time is soon com- ing when these teachers also must be cd!l'ege graduates. On the other hand, it is strongly asserted that this more ad- vanced study tends to suppress that sympathy with child nature so much needed in the elementary schools. The data at hand are rather meager, but they tend to support the latter position. Of the 517 teachers replying, cmly 19 are college grad- uates. There are 14 others who have been in college from one to three years. Of the former group, the following are the colleges and the amounts of deviation of each teacher from the median rank in each group ( + indicates above the median; — , below) : Boston University — 8.50 College of the City of New York + .83 College of the City of New York -f^ .83 College of the City of New York — .\% Manhattan — : .17 Mt. Holyoke — .25 New York University + .83 NormalCoUegeof the Cityof New York. — 2.50 Pennsylvania College + 5. Radcliffe -|)- 2.SO Smith + .45 Smith • — .80 Smith • — 4-2S Smith -I*^ 3-75 Syracuse — i.S*> Tufts -I7 .20 Wellesley •■• — , .25 Wesleyan — p.Sa Woman's College of Baltimore — I. Total + I4S.39 —28.89' Thus, of the 19 college graduates, 11 rank below the median; only 8 above. And the deviations on the lower side are considerably greater than on the upper : 28.89 ^^'^ 14.39 respectively. Of the 14 who attended college but did 114 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION not graduate, lo are ranked below the median and only 4 above, while the sums of the deviations are — 26.30 and + 7.39 respectively. In this consideration four things are to be noted : 1. The small proportion of college-bred teachers in the elementary schools. Of those studied, only 3J4 per cent are college graduates and slightly less than 3 per cent have studied in college without graduating. 2. The relative standing of these in teaching efficiency. Both classes rank below the average teacher. 3. The relation between the two groups. The college graduate stands higher as an elementary teacher than does the one who merely tasted college and did not take a full course. 4. The possibility that only the less gifted college students enter elementary teaching. 5. Fifth qiiestion. Here the inquiry is as to the contribution to efficiency in teaching made by professional study. The method used here is to count the number of Normal School graduates who stand above and below the median rank in each of the 33 schools. That is, is the number of teachers who are Normal School graduates above the median greater than the number below? But we must also take into account the amount above or below which each teacher is. We must give more credit to a teacher who stands first in a group of twelve than to one who stands fourth rank where the median is 5.50. The whole number of Normal School graduates here con- sidered is 290. Of these, 158, or 53 per cent, are above the medians of the several groups. Below are 132, or 47 per cent. This means that so far as numbers go Normal School graduates as teachers are but slightly superior to the aver- TRAINING OF ELEMENTAL Y TEA CHERS 115 age. Considering the amounts of deviation in each of the 290 cases, we find that the total amount of deviation above the medians is 303.25, while that below is 341.22. In this group there are 90 teachers who are gp-aduates of city training schools. Thirty-three, or 37 per cent, are above the median; 57, or 63 per cent, are below. Here is consid- erable difference on the basis of number. The sums of the deviations are: above, 115.45; below, 132.51. Thus, the argument of the numbers is supported and we can conclude that the city training school graduate is below the Normal School graduate. There are 69 teachers in this group who have had no pedagogical training. Thirty, or 43 per cent, are above the median, while 39, or 57 per cent, are below. This argument against the teacher with no pedagogical training is further supported when the deviations are considered. These are: above, 88.80; below, 141.04. The conclusion, then, is that the Normal School graduate is not much above the median standard, but that both those who had their preparation in city training schools and those who have had no pedagogical training at all are distinctly, though not far, below the standard. The importance of such a result is well worth considering by students of edu- cation. CHAPTER VI THE INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS Interest in the study of education and attention to the training of teachers is on the increase. Normal Schools, city training schools, teachers' colleges, and schools of edu- cation in universities are much more prominent than a few years ago, and there is indication that increased attention to this work will continue for some time. Aside from the research work in educational problems conducted in educa- tional departments of universities, these institutions and the Nonmal and training schools emphasize the need of training teachers for their work in elementary, secondary, and even higher schools. Educational literature abounds in emphasis upon the need of training teachers. Discussions in educa- tional gatherings bear upon these same subjects. On the other hand, there seems to be little said or written on the subject of this chapter: Are the instructors in the Normal Schools adequately prepared for their work? It is, indeed, well to emphasize the training of those who are to teach in our public and private schools, or even in our colleges and universities ; but what of those who are teaching these pros- pective teachers? There are at present no established criteria for success- ful, efficient teaching. Perhaps none can be discovered. If teachers are bom, not made; if teaching is wholly an art, not at all a science; if there are really no grounds for a scientific inquiry as to what elements are needed as a prep- ii6 NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 117 aration for teaching, we have no occasion to point out to the prospective teacher certain prescribed principles for in- struction. There are at least elements commonly accepted as essential. First, scholarship, to some degree beyond that of the student under instruction. There is a strong tendency — and in some places even a decision — to require that teachers in our high schools shall be collie graduates. This same principle, so characteristic in the German school system, is to be emphasized more and more throughout our educational system: viz., the teacher must be more in ad- vance of the student under his instruction. A second belief is that some study of educational problems and some training in the art of teaching are essential. In evidence of this, note the large number of teachers in New York state who have had pedagogical training. The following is a classification of the teachers of the state according to the kind of licenses held:^ Pedagogical Training, Normal School 3979 Training School 3323 Examination, State 328 College 197 Commissioners 9143 Temporary 436 This means that considerably more than one-third of all teachers in the state have had pedagogical training. In Massachusetts the increase in the number of pedagogically- trained teachers has been marked in the past decade." Finally, there is much reliance upon personality and in- dividuality as essential in successful teaching. This is more easily recognized than analyzed and developed. The first of these principles seems especially applicable to 1 Report of the State Superintendent, 1902, pp. lO-li. " Report of the Board of Education, 1902, p. 104. Il8 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION the teaching staflf in a school for teachers — emphatically so in the Normal Schools. As was said, little attention has been paid to the quahfications of these instructors. The only reference to this particular matter which I have as yet found is by Atkinson.^ He finds the preparation of the teacher in secondary schools in this country inadequate, in that the Normal School in which he receives his training really supplies no more knowledge than he is supposed to teach. He notes in this connection the few college grad- uates on the faculties of certain of these Normal Schools, adding : " The presupposition may be advanced that those who are not college graduates or their equal in scholarship will not understand how to make the most of what the col- lege graduate brings." I think it may be safely asserted, further, that a Normal School instructor who has not had the experience and uplift of collegiate work, is not suffi- ciently ahead of his students, many or all of whom are high school graduates, to have a high and permanent influence upon them. The design of the Normal Schools of New York, as stated in most of their catalogues, is " to furnish trained teachers for the public schools of the state." ^ Thus, while the Normal Schools may aim primarily to prepare teachers for the elementary schools, they do also pretend to prepare for secondary work as well. The " Normal College " at Albany states its purpose as that of " giving instruction in the science and art of teaching," ° and here there is a dis- tinct intention to prepare teachers for the secondary schools. Further, all of these schools recognize college graduates 1 Professional Preparation of the Secondary Teacher in the United States, p. 24. ^ Circular, New Paltz, 1902-3, page 3. » Circular, 1901, page 3. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS ng and invite them to their work. Albany provides special classes for such. Thus there is really in mind work of a higher grade. This should call for attention to the qualifi- cations of the teachers in such schools. But even if the work were wholly for elementary teaching, is it not right to presume that these projective teachers may look for highly educated teachers in their instruction? Degrees are not ari assurance of educated men. Yet, in general, they do indicate intellectual standing and educational equipment. In this chapter degrees will be used as a partial measurement of the equipment of teachers. The treatment of this theme aims to show: 1. The degrees held by the instructors in the Normal Schools of the state of New York, their distribution and relations; that there are too few of collegiate standing, and rather too many of higher degrees without collegiate standing; that the schools do not compare favorably with other pedagogical institutions. 2. The institutions by which these degrees were g^ranted; that many of the collegiate degrees are from institutions of not high standing, while the higher degrees are too much limited to the home state, and are too often honorary. 3. The preparation of those instructors who are without degrees ; that too many are without adequate training, hav- ing only that offered by the school in which they are now teaching. 4. Similar details of one school throughout its history; that the conditions here are very similar to those of the state at large, showing that the latter — on this basis — ^has made little change or progress. 5. That consequently there are too few of the higher trained men and women engaged in the training of our elementary teachers ; that the inspiration given by graduate study is wanting; that too few of these teachers have I20 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Studied at the centers of greatest advance in educational work. : 6. Similar facts concerning 49 representative State Nor- mal Schools t^iroughout the country; that these show con- ditions similar to thpse found in the New York schools, and thus substantiate the conclusions drawn. The rather large number of tables used will speak strongly for themselves. Tliey say more than can be written about them. They will be their own argument, and will suggest a few conclusions. The data used for the study of the New York schools come through officials at Albany, and are to be relied upon. They are not to be found, as yet, in any printed documents. These data consist of lists of the faculties of each of the twelve Normal Schools in the state. With the name of each instructor are given the several degrees he holds and the names of the institutions from which such degrees were received. Eight of the twelve schools give also the schools at which those who have no d^rees have received diplomas, or have studied. Table XIII shows in detail the degrees held. Roman numerals designate individual schools. The Arabic num- erals in the first column indicate the whole number of instructors in each of the schools. The Arabic numerals in the second column stand for the individual instructors who hold degrees. The marks in the various columns at the right (of these first two) tell the degrees held by each indi- vidual. A summary is given for each school, and in table XIV is given a summary for all the schools. For example: School I has 24 instructors, 13 of whom hold degrees of some kind. Instructor number 10 holds four degrees, viz.: Pd. B., Pd. M., A. B., Ph. D. The total degrees held by this school are: Ph. B., 7; Pd. M., 3 ; A. B., 7; A. M., 8.; Pd. D., 6; LL. B., i; LL. D., 2. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS TABLE XIII DECREES OF NORMAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTORS 121 2 2 Q 2 n m ^ w Q u pa I I 2 3 4 1 I 9 ID II 12 13 I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — I I I I 2 24 II 13 I 2 3 4 I 9 ID " 12 7 3 I I I I 7 I I I I 8 I I I I I I 6 22 III 12 I 2 3 4 i I 9 10 I I I I I I I I 4 I I X I I 6 I I I I 39 10 I I I I 4 1 I I I I 122 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE Xlll— Continued s S 2 (A pa < < PQ IV I 2 3 4 7 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 8 I 2 3 4 7 I I I I I I I I I I 24 V as VI I I I I I I 2 s I I I I 4 I I I 3 I I 2 I I 2 I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I 22 VII 7 I 2 3 4 7 8 9 I I I I I I I I 2 3 I I I 3 4 I I I 3 17 9 I NEfV YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS TABLE Xlll— Continued 123 2 2 2 n (Li n Q Q Q n VIII I 2 3 I I X I I I I I I I I I 20 IX 8 I 2 3 4 I 9 ID II I I I I S I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I d I 1 22 X II I 2 3 4 7 I I I I I I 6 I I 2 I I I I I 1 I 2 I 20 XI 7 I 2 3 4 S I 2 I I I I I I I 3 I I I I 2 I I 23 5 I 2 3 3 I I 124 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE XIII— Concluded I 2 3 4 9 10 II 12 13 2 1 _2 I I I m I I < I .1 . J i u d 0^ 1^ XII I I I I I I I 13 261 13 no 12 ""s 3 3 10 2 10 7 I 3 6 43 2 I 2 I 2 I 3 I I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII A. B. C. D. E. F. A 24 22 29 24 22 17 20 22 20 23 13 TABLE XIV THE NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS In each Normal School faculty. Holding degrees of college standing. Holding higher degrees (without B). Holding pedagogical degrees (alone) . Holding special degrees (alone) . Holding no degrees. B 7 7 6 6 7 3 6 5 9 C 5 S I I 4 2 2 D I E I II (one man is in C and D) 10 19 17 17 15 (one man is in C and E) 8 12 II 4 12 13 18 (one man is in C and D) one man is in C and E) 261 74 26 8 151 (four counted twice) NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 125 Total degrees for the twelve State Normal Schools are: Pd.B 12 A.B S2 LL.B i Pd.M 3 S.M 3 LL.D 2 Pd.D 5 A.M 43 B.D i B.L 3 Sc.D 2 O.M 3 Ph.B 10 Ph.D 22 M.P I B.S 10 M.D 2 Our real problem centers about the number of instructors holding degrees of collegiate standing; this for the reason that pedigogical degrees are as yet of inferior rank, and many higher degrees are obtained in special ways and do not always indicate even the rank of a collegiate degree; while special degrees are what their name implies. We cannot, therefore, consider the no out of the 261 instruc- tors as all acceptable degree men. If this discrimination seems unjust, it must nevertheless be accepted for the pur- poses of this study and allowance made if the conclusions reached here are not admitted. A classification of these degrees is given below. It is to be distinctively understood that this chapter does not claim that the 26 instructors with higher degrees have no degrees of collegiate standing. Un- doubtedly some of them have; on the other hand, it is known that some of them have not. The data asked called for all degrees, and in general this request seems to have been complied with. There is no other way than to treat the data as given, and be willing to make some allowance if later information requires it. (i) Degrees of college standing: B. L., Ph. B., B. S., A. B. (2) Pedagogical degrees : Pd. B., Pd. M., Pd. D. (3) Higher degrees: S. M., A. M., Ph. D., Sc. D. (4) Special degrees: M. D., LL. B., LL. D., B. D., O. M. 126 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION (S) Higher degrees without collegiate degree : There is some indefiniteness as to this item. In some of these cases, I know, the higher degree is without the preliminary college degree; in others there is an uncertainty. It is evidently unjust to the 74 of collegiate standing to say nothing more of them. Further credit must be given those who have, in addition to their collegiate work, at- tained to higher and special degrees. Further, it is well to know to what extent those of higher degrees — without collegiate standing — ^have also pedagogical or special de- grees. All of this is shown in Fig. 2, which gives a com- plete distribution of all the 261 instructors in the Normal Schools on the basis of the number and kind of degrees, and the absence of any degree at all. Some of the results as shown in Fig. 3 are quite sur- prising. Only 28 per cent — a little more than one in four — of all Normal School instructors are college graduates. Does this argue that the Normal Schools, standing as the trainers of the teachers of the public schools of the state, maintain that a college education is a minor matter in the shaping of popular education, that inspiration and efficiency are better gained from those without this higher intellectual training. Ten per cent of the instructors have advanced beyond the collegiate standing. This, it must be said, speaks well ; the more so, if these schools stood for element- ary training only. Yet we can not but encourage an in- crease of this class. The low per cent of pedagogical de- grees is perhaps surprising. It is prdbably complimentary, considering the present standing of this degree and the requirements for its attainment. The 10 per cent of higher degrees without college standing should probably be in part distributed among the 28 and 10 per cent above, as explained earlier. The 58 per cent having no degrees NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 127 at all seem an emphatic indication of the low equipment of these teachers. Nearly three out of every four of all Nor- mal School teachers have not even the pedagogical degree, to say nothing of collegiate or higher training. What pre- paration these teachers really have will be pointed out later. (See Table XVI, page 133). It is interesting to compare briefly the instructors in University departments of education with those in Normal Schools with respect to academic attainments. Choosing certain typical university schools of education and including in the comparison the numerous teachers in the practice- schools and in technical departments who come under the general heading of officers of instruction, we obtain the following comparison: A, whole corps of instructors. B, degrees of college standing. C, higher degrees, in addition to those of college standing. D, higher degrees, without college standing. E, no degrees. A B C D E Normal Schools 261 74 29 26 151 Schools of Education •• 159 83 49 ? 70 In percents of A. Normal Schools 100 28 11 10 58 (4spec. &ped.) I 1 Schools of Education.. loo 53 31 ? 44 (4 spec.) > If we should collate the academic career of the individuals in university Schools of Education whose work parallels that of the staff of a New York ' State Normal School,' the proportion of collegiate and post-collegiate degrees would increase. 1 No account is here taken of those holding special and pedagogical degrees. 128 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION Fio. 2. DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING DEGREES OF COLLEGE STANDING AND THEIR RELA- TIONS TO OTHER DEGREES. Explanation : 1. Roman numerals at margin indicate the school. 2. The center, 74, gives the total of college degrees. 3. The inner circle gives the college degrees of each school. . 4. The second circle gives the higher degrees of each school. 5. The third circle gives the pedagogical degrees of each school. 6. The fourth circle gives the special degrees of each school. Dotted lines show the relation. For example, in School I there are 7 instructors with degrees of college standing. Of these 7, 6 have higher degrees. Of these 6, S have pedagogical degrees, and i has a special degree. There are s with higher degrees (without college de- grees). Of these 5, i has pedagogical and i a special degree. 7. The fifth circle gives the total number on the faculty. In paren- thesis, those without any degree. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 129 Fig. 3- summary op the facts of fig. 2.^ 1. Total degrees of college standing, 74, or 28% of the faculties. Of these 74, with higher degrees are 29, or 11% of the faculties. Of these 28, with pedagogical degrees are 5, or 2% of the faculties. Of these 28, with special degrees are 2, or 1% of the faculties. Of these 74, with pedagogical degrees (only) are 6, or 2% of the faculties. 2. Total higher degrees, without college standing, 26, or 10% of the faculties. Of these 26, with pedagogical degrees are 2, or 1% of the faculties. Of these 26, with special degrees are 3, or 1% of the faculties. 3. Total pedagogical degrees, without ccJlege standing, 6, or 2% of the faculties. 4. Total special degrees, without college standing, 8 or 3% of the faculties. 5. Total with no degrees at all 151, or 58% of the faculties. We may next note briefly the colleges and universities represented by the collegiate and higher degrees already considered. These institutions are put into two classes as indicated in Table XV, page 130. It may be mentioned in this connection that most of the few pedagogical degrees are from the Normal College at Albany. The Michigan Nor- mal College and Wisconsin University are also represented. The sources of the few special degrees need not concern us. This table (XV) gives all the colleges and universities 1 See Errata, p. 152, for corrections. I30 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION represented in the Normal Schools, together with the number of times each is represented, both by collegiate and higher degrees. In the former, Wellesley leads, followed closely by Cornell, Harvard, Smith, Vassar, Yale. In the latter, Syracuse leads, closely followed by Rochester, Cor- nell, Illinois Wesleyan. TABLE XV COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES FROM WHICH DEGREES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS Collegiate Wellesley 8 Cornell 7 Harvard S Smith S Vassar S Yale S Columbia 4 Syracuse 4 Rochester 3 Chicago 2 Illinois Wesleyan Univ 2 Michigan 2 Oberlin 2 Dartmouth Wisconsin Queens Westminster Scio Colorado Wabash Alma Elmira Rutgers. • Colgate Boston Univ St. Lawrence Amherst Adrian Hobart Genesee Middletow n Michigan Nor. Col. Bucknell ■ Higher Syracuse 6 Rochester 5 Cornell 4 Illinois Wesleyan Univ 4 Columbia 3 Hamilton 3 Harvard 3 Amherst 2 Bucknell 2 Colgate 2 Lafayette 2 Michigan 2 Yale 2 McKendree Trinity Radcliflfe Alfred Univ. Westminster Univ. of State of New York. Nat. Nor. Univ. (O.) Johns Hopkins Rutgers St. Lawrence Illinois State Nor. Univ Oberlin Union Hobart , Genesee Smith Wellesley Berlin France Jena Leipsic Strassburg Zurich NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 131 Concerning table XV, three things' are to be noted : 1. Columbia University and Cornell University are not as well represented as might be expected. 2. On the collegiate side, institutions outside of the state are well represented among the leading schools and number about two-thirds of all. On the side of the higher degree. New York has one-half of all represented. No state is so large and well equipped but that the introduction of men from other states will be advantageous. In this respect the representation seems good. 3. Some of the higher degrees are not especially signi- ficant of advanced work and seem out of place in a list with degrees from Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Berlin. Two institutions must have special reference. It is seen in Table XV that five of the Normal School instructors have higher degrees from Rochester University. Four of these degrees are Doctor of Philosophy. But the Ph. D. from Rochester does not stand for advanced study. That university does not give this degree for work done,^ but only as an honorary degree. These degrees cannot, then, be justly ranked with the others. The second institution for special reference is Illinois Wesleyan University. Three of the four higher degrees are Ph. D., and one is A. M. The standard of the degrees may be estimated when one reads in a recent catalog: "The Graduaite Degrees of A. M., and Ph. D. are conferred only for work, the nature and extent of which will be stated on inquiry." ^ It is well known that this work may be done wholly in absentia. " The university does not give instruction in these courses, nor does it lay down a pre- ■■ Private letter from the President 2 Catalogue for 1903, page 12. 132 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION scribed order of yearly or semi-yearly study The latest editions of the texts will be used in the preparation of examination papers. . . . Ph. D. matriculates are re- quired to present themselves at the university for the last examination." ' A similar list of the sources of the degrees of instructors in university ' Schools of Education ' shows to the decided advantage of the latter, especially in the case of the higher degrees. The third part of this study concerns itself briefly with the preparation of those teachers who have no degrees. Of the 261 Normal School teachers there are 151 of this class. But data available permit a consideration of only 89 of these, rep- resenting eight out of the twelve schools. It can scarcely be doubted that these eight schools are fairly representative of all. Table XVI, page 133, explains itself. But special at- tention is called to the statement of percentages which fol- lows it. Two of the statements may be repeated here. 1. Fifty-eight per cent of those having no degree are edu- cated in the school in which they teach. That is, 2. Thirty per cent of all Normal School instructors have had no further educational preparation than that offered by the school in which they are at present engaged as teachers (the elementary and perhaps high school study is, of course, not considered here). These two statements mean that over one-half of those with no degree — which usually means very little educational training — and nearly one third of all teachers in Normal Schools are turned right back as teachers where shortly be- fore they were students. This practice is in violation of the 1 Announcement— Graduate and Non-Resident Department, 1904, pp. 8-10. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 133 principle advocated at the opening of this chapter and approaches the Lancastrian system of monitorial instruc- tion. The pernicious effects of such a practice will be re- ferred to later. TABLE XVI THE PREPARATION (aS FAR AS IT IS KNOWN) OF THE ISI INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS WHO HAVE NO DEGREES. A, the number in each school with no degree. B, graduates of the school in which they are teaching. C, graduates of other Normal Schools of the State. D, those who have studied in various schools.^ A B C D I II 8 2 No data for one. II 10 S 2 3 III 19 No data. IV 17 No data. V 17 9 4 4 VI IS 8 3 4 VII 8 No data. VIII 12 6 3 2 One is of high school only. IX II 3 4 4 X 13 12 I XI 18 No data. XII 151 SI 18 18 It is safe to consider the eight schools for which data are given as typical of all the twelve schools. Upon this basis, we have 89 teachers without degrees, distributed as in the table above. Thus it may be said of teachers without degrees : 1 These are Pratt Institute, 4 ; Emerson School of Oratory, 2 ; Harvard Summer School, 2; Art League (N. Y.), i; Elocution in Philadelphia, i ; Yale Physical Training, i ; Cooper Union, i ; Academic Francaise des Etats Unis, i ; Gorham Normal School, i ; Framingham Normal School, i ; Mansfield Normal School, i. 134 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION S8 per cent, are graduates of the school in which they teach. 20 per cent, are graduates of other Normal Schools of the state. 20 per cent, have done some work in the various schools, named above. I per cent, is a high school student only. I per cent, is unaccounted for. A similar study of instructors in university ' Schools of Education ' who lack degrees, shows a much smaller propor- tion of students trained only by a single institution, much less ' in-breeding,' and much more' study abroad. In line with the foregoing, a study was made of the professional preparation of the faculty of one school from its foundation in 1869 to 1894.^ The history of the school published at that time gives a brief account of each person who had been upon the faculty in those twenty-five years. This account seems to speak as highly as possible of those instructors, such as, " He has been highly honored with the degrees A. B., A- M., D. D., LL.D." The account can therefore be relied upon as giving all the degrees held by the 78 men and women who, in the period of 25 years, held positions in the school. The summary of results is as follows : Total number of instructors 78 Holding collegiate degrees 20 Holding higher degrees 20 (5 of these Ph. D.) Holding special degrees 4 Holding no degrees 46 If we consider the Ph. B. as a degree of college standing in this particular case although it comes from a correspond- ence school, we have 20, or slightly more than one-fourth of the instructors in the school, who have completed work of college standing. So also there are 20 holding higher degrees, A. M. and Ph. D. There are 4 who hold special First Quarto-Centennial History, Potsdam Normal School. NEIV YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 135 degrees. Thirty are Normal School graduates, 17 of whom are graduates of this school. There are 16 who have done no higher study at all. Putting these with the Normal School graduates, we have 46 out of the 78 who have no degrees. We may now make comparison with the state at large as seen in Fig. 3, page 129. State. This School. Holding college degrees 28% 26% With higher degrees 11% 17% Holding only higher degrees 10% 4% Holding no degrees 58% 59% If the past record of this school is typical of the others of the state, there is little difference between the present and past. This would mean that the Normal Schools are mak- ing little headway in securing instructors of more advanced educational qualification. The institutions which granted degrees to the instructors of the school under consideration are the following, — the numbers at the left indicate the ntunber of degrees granted : College Degrees. Higher Degrees. 3 Rochester. 3 Rochester. 3 Syracuse. 3 Syracuse. 2 Union. 2 Hamilton. 2 Yale. I Boston University. 1 Amherst. i Bowdoin. 1 Bowdoin. i Colgate. I Cornell. i St. Lawrence. I Hamilton. i Union. I Howard. i University of New York. I Illinois Wesleyan. i Yale. I Michigan. I Packee Collegiate Institute. » Williams. It must be remarked that four of the five Ph. D. degrees 136 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION given are honorary degrees ; given by four of the univer- sities in this Hst. Such practice speaks for itself, and a record of four such degrees out of five " speaks louder than words." By way of a brief summary of the leading points of this study, the following statements may be made. I. As TO DEGREES : 1. Twenty-eight per cent of all instructors in the Normal Schools have had college training. (This may be slightly increased owing to lack of defi- niteness of data). 2. Eleven per cent of all instructors attained higher degrees in addition to collegiate standing. 3. Normal Schools have only one-half the proportion of college-trained instructors found in one Uni- versity School of Education, and only one-fourth the proportion of those who have advanced to higher degrees. They compare but slightly more favorably with other university Schools of Education. II. As TO INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED: A wide range of institutions are represented by the collegiate degrees, but the higher degrees are much more limited to the state. Yet neither list as a whole shows the strongest institutions and some are questionable. III. As TO THE NON-DEGREE TEACHERS : 1. Fifty-eight per cent of all Normal School instruc- tors have no degree. 2. Thirty per cent of all Normal School instructors NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 137 have received no higher education than that of the school in which they are teaching. 3. The non-degree teachers show very little edu- cational training outside of the Normal School work. The foregoing considerations afford material for much discussion, but a few conclusions only will be made. This whole study may seem to be in criticism of the status quo of the teaching staff of the New York State Normal Schools. Circumstances seem to warrant just this. Yet some will say that the Normal Schools are doing a good work, com- mensurate with the needs and proportionate to that of other institutions. As said above, we have not at hand criteria for measurement of the efficiency of this work. The whole argument is upon the assumption that the work done in the Normal Schools is not what may properly be expected — or at least wished — at this time. The effort of this chapter has been to point out one of the vital elements of weakness and in so doing suggest a remedy. One other assumption has been evident: viz., that the college degree stands for much in the way of educational equipment : the college degree has here been used as a meas- ure of efficiency. To this many, Normal School men espec- ially, may object : and it is admitted that many men with college degrees are most conspicuously unfit for educational work. In spite of this the college man as such stands as a type of man educationally qualified when compared with men lacking this training. A third consideration was referred to earlier: The Nor- mal Schools undoubtedly stand primarily for the training of elementary teachers. Yet the truth is, they do attempt to prepare some teachers for secondary schools. In either case, if our second assumption is valid, and if we have 138 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION regard for the German principle mentioned above, the Nor- mal School student, as a prospective teacher, may well ex- pect and demand that the larger portion of his instruction be at the hands of teachers of at least collegiate training. Conclusions may be stated as follows : 1. There are too few college-trained men and women on the teaching staff of the Normal Schools of New York. More such teachers are needed to give a more scholarly character to the work in place of the more narrow and shal- low work in " methods." Such a class of teachers is further needed to bring a broader and deeper experience and insight into the work and life of the Normal School. Thirdly, there is need of this class of teachers that the Normal Schools may be brought into closer touch with colleges and uni- versities. The estrangement is now too great. The Nor- mal School needs the influence of the universities that are doing the advanced and more progressive work in educa- tional problems.^ The Normal Schools lag behind, satisfied with the work done in the past. Finally, this higher class of teachers is needed to attract a better class of students to these schools. The common report is too true that young people attend these schools who are able to do nothing else. A stronger corps of teachers will attract a stronger class of students. 2. The Normal Schools are fairly represented by teachers who have degrees in advance of the collegiate standing. This higher attainment is not to be insisted upon for all or even for the many, yet it should be encouraged. Normal Schools should be doing some research work in the way of actual tests of practical school work. Such work calls for the student trained in graduate study. 3. It is probable that it would be advantageous if more 1 See a study by Meriam, in Americcm Education, 7 : 97-99, 1903. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 139 of the leading institutions were represented in the Normal Schools. Too few of the degree men in the Normal Schools come from the centers of greatest advance and most pro- gressive methods in educational work. 4. The proportion of teachers who have had no more advanced training than afforded in the Normal Schools themselves should be much lessened. Without this im- provement there is too much of the Lancastrian monitorial system, the instructor only a lesson in advance of his stu- dents. The effect of such work is too evident to need com- ment. But there is in this connection a greater evil. Our inquiry has shown that 30 per cent of all Normal School in- structors have received no educational training in advance of the school in which they are now teaching. The 30 per cent, too, includes only those who are without degrees of any kind. The percent would be somewhat increased if the degree men were added. The pernicious effect of this in-breeding (to use a strong but characteristic expression) is evident; the more injurious, indeed, the more lacking these teachers are in a broad educational training. This practice narrows, stultifies, and makes barren the work and life of the school thus guilty. To supplement the study of degrees held by Normal School faculties of New York state, I have taken 49 other schools scattered throughout the country. This study is based upon the catalogs of these schools in the years 1901 and 1902. Not all catalogs show the preparation of the various instructors. Out of a nearly complete file of the catalogs of State Normal Schools, 49 supply the informa- tion sought. It must be admitted that this material is not as reliable as that of the New York schools : yet it is prob- able that any generalizations made will be not far from the truth. In this list janitors, engineers, nurses, gardeners, etc. I40 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION are not counted, though in a large number of the schools they are listed with the " faculty." Table XVII, pages 142-144 gives in detail the facts col- lected from these catalogs. For convenience, I have divided the states into four groups, viz. : The North Eastern, The North Central, The Western, and The Southern. States not represented are those having no state Normal Schools, or not giving desired information in the catalogs. The number in the column marked ' Professional depart- ment' indicates the instructors in that department. The next column shows the number in the ' Training department.' In only a few schools, however, is this differentiation made. The numbers in the various degree columns indicate the number of instructors in that particular school holding such degrees, e. g., in school 12 (of i), 7 hold the degree M. E. ; 4, the A. B. ; 4, the A. M. ; 3, the Ph. D. ; and there are three with special degrees. The little figures i, 2, 3, etc., refer to the following key: 1. Instructor also holds A. M. degree. 2. Instructor also holds M. S. degree. 3. Instructor also holds A. B. degree. 4. Instructor also holds B. S. degree. 5. Instructor also holds Ph. B. and B. L. degrees. 6. Instructor also holds Pedagogical Degree. 7. Instructor also holds Special Degree. For example, in school 12, 2 of the 3 holding the Ph. D. degree also hold the A. M. degree. These 49 schools may be taken as typical of the Normal Schools throughout the country. The question asked here is the same as that asked concerning the schools of New York state, viz. : What is the preparation of the instructors in these schools, judged by the degrees they hold? It must again be emphasized that the mere possession of a de- gree is no absolute criterion of efficiency in teaching. But NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 141 the tendency of all educational institutions is to demand of their instructors the possession of collegiate or higher de- gree, as evidence of having pursued courses that prepare for educational work. The degree, then, serves as one mark of preparation. In these 49 Normal Schools scattered throughout the country outside of New York state, we find a total of 1063 teachers. 188 of these belong to the train- ing departments. In some of these schools, this means teachers in the grades. We shall, therefore, exclude these from consideration. It may be noted, in passing, that 9 of these hold collegiate degrees: 3 have the A. M. degree; 3, the A. B. degree; 2, the B. S. degree; and i, the Ph. D. Omitting these 188, we have 875 Normal School teachers to consider. The character of the data forbids going into detail as in the consideration of the New York teachers. For example: in only a few cases can we tell what lower degree is held by one who has an A. M. or a Ph. D. Such a case, however, may be seen in group III, school 3, in column headed Ph. D. Here are two men holding this degree, one of whom holds the A. M. (marked i ) : the other, a special degree (marked 7). We shall, therefore, con- sider only the total. 142 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE XVII NORTHEASTERN STATES a g . .2 . tm Special. "o o •s «Q _: H 111 §0 pq" pq < 1^ < I ^ I i6 I I I I 13 in 4-> 2 13 I « 1 19 in 9 3 8 I 2 U 18 s 4 i6 1 I 2 I in J2 9 s 5 IS I I" IS ■M 6 7 I M.D. u 10 ' 19 I I M.D. 8 10 I I LL.D. 9 10 I I I I 12 2 I >-% 10 33 I 2 2 2 4 I M.D. ^ 31 2 3 I H- 1 II 22 2 I 2 pi 12 I M.B., 1 M.D., 12 29 7 4 4' 3l I B.6. cd 13 24 7 4' I' 2 B.O., I B.E. *s 14 29 2 6 3 3* I I D.D. g IS 26 10 2 9" i' & i6 44 2 I 7 36 3 3 5il c g >^ b 17 i8 19 30 S 7 I 2 3 7 3§ 1 3{ I M.D., I M.B. ^ B O 19 5 2 u 20 I > 21 6 I Total. 21 377 2 I 45 I I 62s 948 2S 12 special. 133 ^ 3 I I NEIV YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 143 TABLE XVII— Continued WEST CENTRAL STATES II C c< o o O Total n a o ho c °) O. 'S o. (14 pq'iS 10 lit 12 13 13 17 SO 37 20 55 24 18 10 14' 191 20 313 PL< P4 45 tn I n pli n "f I V I 3' 6 I I 2 15,21 I I mis 17 20 14 4 2 I 7" I 2 2- Special. I U.S.A., iPh.M. 2B.M., I Ph.M., 2B.P. I Ph.M., iLL.B. I M.S.D. 1646 IIS |2 I I Ph.M. II special. • 16 without any degrees are graduates of this school. 1 7 are graduates of normal schools. 144 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE yiWll-Concluded WESTERN STATES 1 1 1 1 "o 1 ! w •3 .2 . (A -4^ 60 . ■gO H s 4 4 2 2 2 Q I I m,pH PP CO 1 < Q PL| Special. III Ariz. Cal. Col. Mon. N. M. Wash. Ore. Ida. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 20 26 24 9 9 13 17 10 7 I 2 3 I' I I 2 2 3 I I I I I I 4 2 I 2 I 3 3' 4» 2 2 I 2' I I 2l 3 I I 2 I B. P. I M. L. I B. Acct. •4 B. S. D. Total 9 135 7 2 xo 10 4 17 II 7 Special. ■SOUTHERN STATES IV Ark. I 5 2 I' I L. I. Fla. 2 6 I 2 L.I. Ga. 3 4 5 14 3 I 2 4 I B. E. Vir. S 12 3 I H W. Vir. 6 8 2 I Total 6 SO 3 I 10 6 - 4 Special. Grand Total 49 875 188 12 8 46 19,24 I 34 65 3 29 117 3 53 34 Special. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 145 The following table shows the totals in the four groups : TABLE XVIII. N. Eastern States . W. Central States- Western States ■ • ■ Southern States • . • Totals V J! a CJ H . pq S W J m W m § ^ P 't3 •n J3 , . J3 ;z; On (U ^ m PL( n < W -< PM 377 2 I 45 I I 62s 9 48 25 313 6 5 15 21 1720 16 46 IS 135 4 2 I 3 2 ID 10 4 17 II so I ID 6 2 875 12 8 46 19 24 34 65 29,117 53 ;i2 III 7 4 34 Let us group these, as with the New York schools, into pedagogical, collegiate, higher, and special degrees. Pedagogical degrees: Pd. B.; Pd. M.; M. E.^ Collegiate " B. L. ; Ph. B. ; B. S. ; A. B. Higher " S. M. ; A. M. ; Ph. D. N. Eastern States. W. Central States Western States Southern States • • • TABLE XIX (i). No. of teachers. Pedagogical. Collegiate. Higher. Special Total 377 313 135 SO 87s 48 II 7 66 33 73 25 II 142 82 77 32 8 199 12 II 7 4 34 Expressing these in per cent of the number of teachers, 1 The M. E. is the " Master of Elementary Didactics " degree. This was at one time given by the Normal Schools of Pennsylvania, but has now been discontinued. 1^6 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION we have the following: showing, also, the percentage of teachers having no degree at all. TABLE XIX (2). No. of teachers. Pedagogical. Collegiate. Higher. Special. No degree. N . Eastern States • . 100 15 9 22 3 SI W. Central States.. loo 3 23 24 3 47 Western States .... 100 S 19 24 5 47 Southern States ... 100 22 16 8 54 Higher. 10 Special. 3 No degrees. 58 23 4 49— 100 8 16 23 4 49 Comparing these figures with those for New York, we have: Pedagogical. Collegiate. New York 2 28 Other States 8 16 The large percentage holding pedagogical degrees in " other states " is due to the early practice in the Pennsyl- vania scJhools, already referred to. The lower percentage holding collegiate degrees — 16 as compared with 28 — is doubtless due to the inaccuracy of the data, in that 23 per cent are assigned to the higher degrees, while many of these are doubtless holders of collegiate degrees as well. If we assume that in " other states " the percentage of instructors having higher degrees without collegiate is that of New York, viz. : 10 per cent, we would then have practically the same percentage of collegiate degrees, viz. : 29. This as- sumption is probably not far from the truth. Those having special degrees are practically the same. The above figures show that 58 per cent of the New York Normal School teachers have no degrees : while in " other states," there are only 49 per cent. Yet these figures are probably, in reality, practically the same. Seventy per cent of all the pedagogical degrees in " other states " are the M. E., now discarded by the very schools which once gave them. This NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 147 means, essentially, that 70 per cent of these 8 per cent must be ranked with those having no degree. This leaves only about 2 per cent in " other states " holding pedagogical de- grees, and gives 55 per cent having no degrees. Thus we conclude that the standing of the teachers in the Empire State Normal Schools is practically t)^ical of that throughout the Normal Schools of the country. Or, in other words, the low standard in the New York schools, as pointed out above, is typical of the Normal Schools of the country; and all conclusions reached with reference to the former are substantiated by a study of the larger group. The holding of degrees — as discussed above — is only one of many standards by which one's preparation for an educa- tional position may be estimated. Too much must not be based on that standard. Too much must not be based on any one standard. One other standard may be here briefly considered. This is that of contributions to educational literature. This surely must not be considered a very safe standard. There are teachers, and there are writers. Greatness in the former does not necessarily suggest power in the latter. " Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, in the Educational Review protesting against Dr. Stanley Hall's magnifying research and investigation as a necessary element in a progressive and effectual scholar, says : ' It must be borne in mind that productive scholarship and printing are far from being iden- tical. The highest type of productive scholarship in our day finds its expression through will work in institutions, great and small.' " ^ President Butler would doubtless ap- ply this principle to the teacher. The highest type of effi- cient teaching is in " will work " in the class room, rather than in contributions to the press. ^ American Education, vol. v, p. 79. 148 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION On the other hand, there is much in President Hall's em- phasis upon the value of research and investigation, as a necessary element in progressive and effectual educational work. This element is a necessary prerequisite to valuable contributions to educational literature. It is just as essen- tial to progressive and efficient teaching. One who is mak- ing such progress through some form of research will doubt- less make his advancement known through books or educa- tional periodicals. Thus contributions to current educa- tional literature form probably another actual criterion of the interest and progressiveness in educational work on the part of our Normal School instructors. To this end I have examined all the articles published in 189s, 1900, and 1903, in six of our leading educational periodicals (with one exception, American Education, which was not easily accessible for just these dates). As is well known, Normal Schools have laid considerable emphasis upon psychology. It is not, then, out of place to consider here two psychological magazines. Except in the School Review, all " Reviews " are included as regular articles. The contributors are divided in four groups: i. Normal School teachers; 2. Public School teachers, including prin- cipals and superintendents; 3. College and University in- structors ; 4. Others, including business men, public officials, and the -writers of unsigned articles. The figures given in Table XX, page 150 are subject to some criticism, by reason of the indefiniteness of the fourth group. This includes all articles not classed in one of the other three groups. This includes a large number where no signature is given, or where I was unble to locate the author by his name alone. The importance, however, of these figures lies in the relations among the other three columns. NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 149 Out of a total of 1438 articles examined, only 78, or about S per cent, are contributed by Normal School men: 13 per cent are contributed by teachers in the Public Schools; 48 per cent are contributed by college instructors. We must not place too much dependence on these figures : but they do measure the relatively small amount contributed to educa- tional literature by Normal School instructors. As pointed out above, this is one of many tests of activity in educa- tional problems. ISO NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION TABLE XX Normal School ■3 1" ll u 1 1 Psychological Review 1895 igoo 1903 2 20 9 20 60 95 59 41 9 Total American Jour, of Psy. 1895 1900 IJ03 228 25 It 109 14 17 2 33 27 34 21 337 Total Educational Review 189s 1900 1903 2 3 75 72 55 54 110 Total Education 1895 1900 1903 23 S 6 5 49 16 18 II 181 23 IS II 82 50 54 33 335 Total 16 3 3 2 45 19 12 17 49 64 41 23 137 23 20 14 57 18 17 2 247 1900 1903 Total Pedagogical Seminary 1895 1900 1903 8 I I 4 48 25 24 128 7 9 II 241 Total 6 4 19 27 2 2 37 7 15 70 1903-4 Total Grand Total 23 78 49 191 4 692 22 477 148 1438 BIBLIOGRAPHY Special references are made to the following: American Journal of Instruction, 1830, 1833, 1835, 1841. Atkinson, F. W. Professional Preparation of the Secondary Teacher in the United States. Barnard, H. On Normal Schools. Boas, . Yale Psychological Studies, 2 : 40. Brown, E. E. The Making of Our Middle Schools. Butler, N. M. American Education, s : 79. Common School Journal, 1839, 1840. Davenport, C. B. Statistical Methods. Gilbert, J. American Journal of Psychology, 4: 366. Gordy, J. P. Beginning of the Normal Idea in the United States. Literary Gazette, 1825. Meriam, J. L. American Education, 1903. Miinsterberg, H. Atlantic Monthly, 1903. North American Review, 1825. Pearson, K. Grammur of Science. Phillips, J. H. Chicago School Commission's Report, 1900. Potsdam Normal School, First Quarto-Centennial History of. Spearman, C. American Journal of Psychology, 1904. Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology. Lecture Notes, 1903-1904. Mental and Social Measurements. United States Review, 1825- Wissler, C. Psychological Review Monograph, 3 : no. 6. Reports Chicago. Special Commission, 1900. Committee of Fifteen. Illinois. State Board of Education, 1900-1902. Iowa. State Board of Education, 1902. Massachusetts. State Board of Education, igoo-1902. Missouri. State Superintendent, 1897. National Educational Association, 1858-1900. 151 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY New York. State Superintendent, 1836, 1902. Ohio. Commissioner of Common Schools, 1902. United States Commissioner of Education, 1897. Catalogues Albany Academy, 1874. Albany, Normal G>llege, 1846, 1903, 1904. Andover Academy, 1848, 1874. California, University of, 1903. Chicago University, 1902-1903. Cincinnati University, 1901-1902. Cornell University, 1897-1899. Dartmouth College, 1903-1904. Illinois Wesleyan University, 1903, 1904. Los Angeles (Cal.) Normal School, 1901. Michigan, University of, 1903-1904. Missouri, University of, 1903-1904. New Paltz (N. Y.) Normal School, 1902-1903. Oshkosh (Wis.) Normal School, 1901. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1904-1905. Westfield (Mass.) Normal School, 1901. Wisconsin, University of, 1903-1904. ERRATA Page 129. Figure 3 should show 29, instead of 28, holding higher degrees in addition to a college degree. Of these S, instead of 6, hold pedagogical degrees. The percents in the second part of the figure should be II and 2 respectively, instead of 10 -|- and 2-|-.