Slike strani

the next 10 years, and second, that the training of the present home economics extension field force is inadequate. If to these considerations be added the increasing emphasis upon all forms of adult education and consequent development of methods and techniques appropriate to such instruction, it becomes fairly obvious that home economics may well give greater attention to courses designed for the special training of home economics extension workers.

In the past such courses as have been offered have not been popular, but even cursory examination of the situation reveals many reasons for their failure to appeal to students. In many instances they have been makeshifts, only slightly related to actual work in the field by practice opportunities, and even more commonly the tone of extension leaders in the institutions has been one of minimizing the practical benefits and advantages that may result from formal training for the field. So much reliance has been placed upon common sense, tact, and energy requirements for extension service that the actual possibilities of psychological and personnel management instruction have been seriously neglected. If home economics extension is to be developed to the extent and upon a plane that is desirable, training must be given comparable to that of high-school teachers although of quite a different kind and emphasis.

It is also somewhat disconcerting to discover that the courses that are directly related to health constitute but 3 per cent of the total number of home economics courses offered. While it is true that health and sanitation are treated in other groups of courses from both their public and domestic aspects, it is extremely probable that the small number of courses offered directly upon the subject reflect an actual deficiency of emphasis in home economics work. At no point does home economics have a better opportunity to provide upon a nonmedical plane a very extensive and extremely technical body of scientific, legal, and social training that should create attitudes and interests upon the part of students which will operate throughout their lives to the advantage of personal living and community welfare. It is earnestly recommended that home economics leaders consider the possibility of utilizing subject matter in the fields of health and sanitation to a much greater extent than at present as a means of accomplishing the objectives of home economics defined by preceding paragraphs of this report.

Although not a matter that concerns the classification of home economics courses by subject-matter fields, one further noticeable and perhaps significant characteristic or tendency became very evident in the examination of the courses listed by home economics departments for the purposes of this survey. This was the frequency with which the word “ selection” was included in the course titles. Food selection, clothing selection, selection of household testiles and furnishings, and similar titles show the interest being taken in presenting a larger number of courses on this basis. Specialization in industry has taken over in such large part the construction of the materials necessary to clothe, house, and feed the family, that the problem of the homemaker is, and will increasingly be, one of selection. It is becoming more and more the case that choice of commodities and activities must be based upon highly technical knowledge if it is to be intelligent and not simply in response to attractively illustrated advertising.

Chapter VII.--Curricula

A curriculum is merely the bringing together of various elements of instruction so related to each other and to the accomplishment of a common purpose that a definite educational objective may be attained. A curriculum is in effect a planned rather than a chance means to reach a specific desirable educational outcome. Merely to group together a series of courses haphazard and without reference to a purposeful result is not making a curriculum. The whole significance and purpose of curriculum making lies in the assembly anıl use of materials purposefully. Like a road a curriculum leads from one place to another; its terminal must be definitely selected. A single curriculum can not serve a half dozen major objectives.

It becomes important, therefore, to discover how home economics sets about constructing its curricula, what objectives are set up by each, and how well the specific selection and groupings of elements are adapted to the accomplishment of these objectives.

In discussion of methods of determining offerings some of the administrative processes adopted for the construction of home economics curricula have been presented. The arrangement of these offerings into distinct curricula is usually not rigidly prescribed throughout. Part may be required, part freely elective, or part may be elective within a limited range of choice. Many kinds of combinations and special adjustments are in practice. Thus a basic or core group of courses extending over a 4-year period (sometimes mistakenly referred to as a curriculum) may be prescribed to which various free or group electives may be attached for the purpose of attaining specialized objectives of various kinds. Or the basic courses may be grouped in the first two years and upon these various specialized curricula of two years may be constructed. Under either of these types of course grouping, what the student gets is a curriculum only in so far as the grouping and the succession represent a planned and purposeful means to the accomplishment of a definite educational end.

How many curricula do the various home economics units set up and which ones are most generally offered? Without attempting to determine at this point whether what the institutions call curricula

[ocr errors]

satisfy the definition given or are in fact something else, we find the following situation. Five institutions report but one curriculum, that in general home economics. Eleven report 2 curricula, 1 of which in 10 instances is the general home economics curriculum and in 9 cases is the curriculum in teacher training. Three curricula are offered by each of 10 institutions; 4 by 7; 5 by 4; 6 by 1; 7 by 3; 8 by 2; and 10 by 1. Three-fourths of all the institutions reporting offer four or fewer curricula.

It would appear, therefore, upon the face of these returns that the land-grant colleges are in most instances attempting to arrange their work into articulated groups and programs for the accomplishment of a limited number of major objectives. However, this apparent conclusion must be considerably modified in view of the variety of major objectives reported in other portions of the survey returns. It appears rather that in many instances so-called curricula are in fact not groups of courses coordinated for the accomplishment of definite objectives. It seems that assemblies of practically all courses available are frequently designated by the term “curricula" merely upon the basis of the predominance of courses in a specific field. Further examination of detail with reference to certain curricula for which data were furnished will afford additional evidence upon this question.

The following list of curricula given by the institutions will serve to indicate those most generally offered and will also provide a convenient order for successive discussions of each. The curriculum in general home economics is listed by 36 institutions; that in teacher training by 35; foods and nutrition by 20; textiles and clothing by 10; institutional management by 15; extension by 14; and applied or related art by 6.

Various others mentioned by from one to three institutions are curricula in physical education, family life, bacteriology, hospital dietetics, research in textiles and clothing and in clothing and art, hotel management, and home management. But these are so infrequently offered that they are of little significance in a study of general practice in home economics curriculum differentiation.

General Home Economics

General home economics is the curriculum named by more institutions than any other. It will be examined, therefore, in considerable detail in order to determine: First, whether general agreement has been reached as to its objectives; second, whether general agreement has been reached concerning the proportion of the total time that should be allowed to required and elected work; and third, whether general agreement has been reached as to its content.

Of the 36 institutions that list the objectives of their general home economics curricula, 33 name home making, thus indicating that in three institutions at least other objectives control this curriculum apparently to the exclusion of home making. Twenty-seven report that general culture is an objective. Although this is a somewhat different objective than the home-making one, the two are not inconsistent. It is of little significance, therefore, that many of the same institutions list these two objectives for a single curriculum. But additional items listed, such as teaching by 12 institutions, hospitaldietetics work by 8, extension by 5, social service and business each by 3, and research by 2, indicate clearly a somewhat amazing confusion of objectives assigned to a single curriculum. It is fairly obvious that several of these objectives are so directly vocational and specialized that a curriculum designed to prepare for home making or even for general culture must of necessity be inappropriate to the attainment of such different purposes. The conclusions that may be drawn are: First, that many home economics units have no clear conception of the functions of a curriculum. Second, that objectives are not clearly defined by many home economics units. Third, that home economics has not reached the degree of common agreement concerning the major objectives of general home economics as would seem to be indicated by the frequency with which home making and general culture are stated as objectives.

Division of time between requirements and electives in the general home economics curriculum.-Quite apart from unity of objectives in the general home economics curriculum it might be expected that a certain degree of agreement would have been reached with reference to the proportionate distribution of the time given in this curriculum between prescriptions in home economics and the sciences and humanities and electives permitted. It was possible from the returns made by the home economics units to compile this information for the general home economics curriculum in only 15 institutions. The results of this compilation are given in Table 16. The ranges shown by the table are significant. The University of Wisconsin requires that 15 per cent of the total requirements for graduation be taken in home economics subjects, while the University of Missouri requires 39.3 per cent, more than twice as large a proportion. However, 9 of the 15 institutions show a range within very narrow limits from 23 per cent to 28 per cent of the total. To the sciences and humanities one institution demands that students give 33 per cent of their credit hours while another requires 65 per cent. The intermediate steps between these extremes are fairly regular. The proportion of the total time allowed for electives shows a still wider range. One institution allows only 10.8 per cent while another per

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »