Slike strani

many college organizations and curricular plans. The problem of the general home economics curriculum becomes one, therefore, of determining which of four general policies it shall follow. Shall it adhere to the principle of the 4-year arts and science course in which interest is aroused by inserting courses of specific home economics character throughout the entire period? Shall it attempt to develop what may be called an isolated college of general home economics in which the basic core about and through which the abstract sciences and humanities are made to function upon the consciousness of its students in home interest? Or shall it accept the principle that home economics shall during the first two years complete the general education of its students by utilizing home economics subject matter to vitalize the elements of education that in their abstract form appeal less to women and to follow this general training by other specialized 2-year curricula looking to occupational or research preparation? Or shall it abandon any special emphasis upon home economics during the first two years, and depending upon a type of general education designed to prepare during this period for almost any kind of specialization, undertake to set up distinct 2-year general, vocational, and research curricula in home economics upon the basis of these two years of general education. All these tendencies are evident in current educational development. Probably all will persist and be embodied more or less permanently in different types of institutions in spite of the present strength of the tendency to emphasize the advantages of two years of general junior college education upon which specialization may be based. The survey does not recommend any single one of these plans to general home economics for adoption by all institutions. It does earnestly recommend that in harmony with the policy of the institution of which it is a part each home economics unit definitely select one of these four choices and reexamine its curricula, especially its general home economics curriculum, in accordance with the general theory and policy adopted. At present this has not been done. Much of the confusion in the present construction of home economics curricula arises from attempts by single home economics units to adhere simultaneously to two or more very different and divergent plans.

Confusion of general home economics objectives with vocational and research purposes that is evident in the statement of objectives and content of home economics curricula arises in part from attempted adherence to two or more of the theories of educational organization just presented. In part this confusion is due to the inadequate educational training and experience of home economics personnel which results apparently in inability to relate specific demands for home economics education to appropriate subject-matter combinations.

However the situation is not due entirely to either of these causes, an important factor has been institutional and social insistence that diverse objectives be served without providing personnel and facilities which would make possible articulation of subject matter consistent with the purposes intended. Home economics like other elements of higher education has had to meet pressures of this kind by expedients that the personnel could not sanction upon professional or educational grounds. This is a problem for institutional as well as for home economics administrators. Both should attempt to limit offerings to areas that the institution is prepared to handle effectively rather than to comply with all the diverse demands that may be made or to attain by means of paper arrangements the variety and scope of curricula of larger and better financed institutions. The general home economics curriculum that contemplated a general college education specifically designed for woman is the basic function and service of home economics education. This implies, however, no belittling of more specific vocational functions which should be served through their own curricula. The need for vocational specialization in the fields in which women find employment is highly desirable. Demands for cafeteria managers, teachers, dietitians, editors, saleswomen, and buyers in specialized lines and so through the whole series of modern remunerative employments have to be considered from the standpoint of college home economics functions.

From the strictly vocational standpoint many of these occupations do not require four years of college training in the specialty that is applicable. Many of the women who look forward to life employment in certain vocations may not profitably devote two years of junior college to general education as foundation for specialization. In these cases which can be determined only by careful personnel judgment of the student and by careful analysis of the contemplated occupation, the vocational preparation may well be given upon the lower division or junior college level. Curricula should be devised for this purpose. The student who spends two years in general preparation as a basis for more exacting specialized vocational preparation should, in the cvent that she changes her mind or fails to display the requisite abil. ity for such specialization, be permitted and encouraged to attempt one of the junior college vocational curricula. On the other hand several of the vocational curricula now dispersed through four years may well be concentrated into two years of senior college or upper division work based upon two years of general junior college training. General junior college training may or may not be through a 2-year

general home economics curriculum. It seems advisable, however, wherever institutional organization and policy permit that this be the plan adopted.

With the present high standards of high-school education it is probable that two years of general home economics instruction upon the junior college level will provide as high a standard of general education as is advisable and should be followed by specialized upperdivision curricula. However, it is not improbable that the social judgment of the desirability of “ going to college ” will and should preserve indefinitely in some institutions the 4-year home economics curriculum with objectives that are strictly those of general education.

General home economics curricula and curricula designed to prepare for home economics vocations should be distinguished from those that contemplate preparation for research. The research function is one of scholarly preoccupation distinctly different from the general purposes of liberal education and although research may lead to remunerative employment the main characteristic is learning, not earning. Because of the influence of developments in other fields as well as because of a very real connection with areas of primary concern to home economics the tendency in home economics discussion has been to emphasize scientific research. However, research in the sociological and economic aspects of women's interests and especially in the problems of women's education should have as much earnest attention as research in the physical sciences. Perhaps more emphasis should be given, since the conventional investigations in the field of the social sciences is less directly applicable to home economics problems than is the case of research in physical sciences.

The need for research to clarify and supply material for the home economics education of women is clearly recognized in the statements of objectives assigned to all the home economics curricula. The adaptation of subject matter to meet this need is, however, often insufficiently distinguished from the assemblies of courses for the purpose of attaining quite different objectives. This is evident from an examination of the home economics curricula described for the the purposes of the survey.

Part of this confusion arises from the persistence of belief in, but vague definition of, the desirability of providing those who are to follow scholarly pursuits with a basic general home economics training. Perhaps some of the perplexity engendered by the wish for this alliance would disappear if the problem were attacked by utilizing a 2-year period of general home economics education as a means for providing this training and as a means of selecting the students who should be guided to an upper-division curriculum looking definitely to preparation for research in physical or social sciences. Thus stated it should be distinctly different from the preparation designed for the more highly skilled or technical vocations. The courses chosen for this curriculum would naturally be those which give training in the methods of investigation and research procedures appropriate to groups of the social or physical sciences. The purpose of this specialization is clearly not that of undergraduate attainment of expertness or productiveness in a specific field of scholarship but is rather that of preparation for graduate apprenticeship for scholarly production.

To recapitulate briefly, home economics curricula should be carefully distinguished as to objectives and their length adapted to the specific purposes they are intended to serve. The general home economics curriculum of two years' duration may provide a basis both for a variety of upper level vocational curricula and for curricula looking to development of research careers in the physical or social sciences. Lower division vocational curricula are needed both for those who do not contemplate more highly technical employments and for those who prove unable to pursue such advanced training. Nevertheless, it is probable that some institutions should continue to provide more discursive and leisurely 4-year curricula both in general and in vocational home economics,


Chapter VIII. - Home Economics Teaching

A national survey of the status of home economics in the landgrant colleges can contribute little to the solution of problems of actual classroom teaching. The survey data do, however, furnish some information in regard to emphasis upon the laboratory method and in regard to the extent to which individual instruction is undertaken.

It is perfectly evident that home economics has somewhat enthusiastically accepted the laboratory method as a means of instruction. In 12 institutions the number of laboratory and lecture or recitation hours are about equal. In 24 other institutions the proportion of laboratory to lecture or discussion hours varies from 3 to 1 and 4 to 1. In one institution among 20 home economics courses taught in 1927– 28 two hours of lecture, none of discussion, and 73 hours of laboratory work per week are shown. In another among 60 courses are 40 hours of lectures, 17 of discussion, and 226 laboratory hours per week. In still another, no lectures, 18 discussion hours, and 100 laboratory hours occur.

These facts raise two questions. Are the so-called laboratory hours in such subjects as foods and clothing devoted to practice in becoming good cooks or expert seamstresses? Are they devoted to work compatible with the real functions of laboratory work, making the students familiar with the techniques and methods of attack through which truth is discovered or applied? If the former is the case, the Jaboratory hours are a weakness in home economics instruction and not an element of strength as is usually assumed. If the latter is the case, it would seem that the proportion of time devoted to the purpose is entirely too great for the range and level of undergraduate instruction. The undoubted values of the laboratory method have in other fields as well as in home economics led to overemphasis upon and substitution of routines and insignificant procedures for basic instructional values that may be acquired by this method. The entire matter of laboratory method and its place in teaching needs thorough reexamination in home economics as in other fields. Probably educational experimentation designed to determine comparatively the results of laboratory work of various kinds and in various amounts 111490°-30_VOL 1



« PrejšnjaNaprej »