DEPARTMENT OF MANUAL TRAINING SECRETARY'S MINUTES FIRST SESSION.-TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1907 The department met in joint session with the departments of Elementary Education and Art Education in the First Methodist Church, Los Angeles, Cal., and was called to order at 2:30 P. M. by the president, Frank M. Leavitt, assistant director of drawing and manual training, Boston, Mass. August Ahrens, director of manual training, State Normal School, Warrensburg, Mo., presented a paper on "The Development of an Adequate Course of Study in Manual Training for the Elementary Grades" from the point of view of the teacher of the manual arts. Fletcher B. Dresslar, associate professor, Department of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Cal., discussed the same topic from the point of view of child-study. Mrs. Alice Woodworth Cooley, president of the Department of Elementary Education, introduced Chas. H. Keyes, supervisor of South District Schools, Hartford, Conn., who discussed the topic from the view-point of the school superintendent. Thomas A. Mott, superintendent of schools, Richmond, Indiana, led the general discussion and was followed by L. E. Wolfe, superintendent of schools, San Antonio, Texas; Cree T. Work, president of College of Industrial Arts, Denton, Texas; Miss Emma C. Davis, supervisor, public schools, Cleveland, Ohio, and Arthur H. Chamberlain, Dean of Throop Polytechnic Institute, Pasadena, Cal. The chair then appointed the following committees: August Ahrens, Warrensburg, Mo. SECOND SESSION.-THURSDAY, JULY 11 The department met at the First Methodist Church and was called to order by President Leavitt, who made brief introductory remarks on the general topic, "The Relation of Industrial Education to Public Instruction." B. W. Johnson, director of manual training, public schools, Seattle, Wash., discussed the subtopic, "Manual Training versus Industrial Training in the High Schools." Jesse D. Burks, Principal of the Teachers Training School, Albany, N. Y., discussed the subtopic, "Can the School Life of Pupils Be Prolonged by an Adequate Provision for Industrial Training in the Upper Grammar Grade ?" The subtopic, "Industrial Training as Viewed by the Manufacturer," was discussed in a paper by Magnus W. Alexander, engineer in charge of drawing-office, General Electric Co., Lynn, Mass., and vice-president of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education. The Committee on Nominations presented the following report: For President Jesse D. Burks, Albany, N. Y. For Vice-President-Anna C. Hedges, Brooklyn, N. Y. For Secretary-William E. Roberts, Cleveland, Ohio. The report was accepted and the nominees elected. The Committee on Resolutions presented the following resolutions, which were adopted: WHEREAS, The accumulative work of the department during the last two years seeking a more rational statement of courses of manual training, seems now to indicate a necessity for some definite work by a special committee; be it therefore, Resolved, That the manual-training department of the National Educational Association, now in session, recommend the appointment of a committee for the purpose of collecting data of the manual-training work done thruout this country, that suggestive courses adaptable to various conditions found therein may be formulated by them. Resolved, That this committee consist of three persons now actively engaged in manual training, with power to add to their number a superintendent of schools, a teacher of art, a child-study specialist, a grade teacher, and a representative from such other departments as may be deemed advisable to increase the efficiency of their work. Resolved, That the aforesaid committee of three be appointed by the president of this department. Resolved, That this committee be appointed for a term of two years, being requested to make a preliminary report at the next meeting of this association. Resolved, That a committee of one be appointed by the president of this department to make formal application to the board of directors of the Association for an appropriation to defray the expenses of the committee. THIRD SESSION.-FRIDAY, JULY 12 The department met in joint session with the Department of Indian Education. Elbert H. Eastman, director of fine and industrial arts, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, read a paper on “Rational Art and Manual Training in Rural Schools.” M. Friedman, assistant superintendent, Haskell Indian Institute, Lawrence, Kansas, presented a paper on "Manual Training in the Indian Schools." Miss R. M. Hodge, teacher of manual training, public schools, Los Angeles, Cal., discussed the topic, "The Relation of Primitive Handicrafts to Present-Day Educational Problems." The president then appointed, in accordance with the resolutions adopted at the second session, the following committee. ON INVESTIGATION B. W. Johnson, director of manual training, Seattle, Wash., Chairman. Miss Euphrosyne Langley, associate in manual training, School of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Cree T. Work, Denton, Texas, was appointed to make application to the Board of Directors for an appropriation to defray expenses of the committee on investigation. The department then adjourned. AUGUST AHRENS, Acting Secretary. PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE COURSE OF I. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE TEACHER OF MANUAL ARTS An analysis of the topic as worded implies that we develop a course of study in manual training in terms of exercises and tool practices, and that we give reasonable attention to the adequacy or the inappropriateness of the materials commonly used in construction. The present status of manual training in this country indicates that along these lines we have been very successful in developing our courses. It is maintained that an attempt to organize a single course of study in terms of tools, materials, and exercises would be of small avail and add little to the further development of this department of educational activity. It is moreover maintained by our advanced thinkers that greater good will result if special attention were given to the problems demanding consideration in different sections of the country, and courses rich in material suggestiveness be developed rather than one single course. I am not in sympathy with any attempt made to formulate at this time or at any time a set course of study to be held up as a model. It would be most unpedagogical to do so, and in fact quite unnecessary. All we can hope to accomplish here is the formulation of a statement of principles, by which any attempt at systematizing handwork may be guided and the educational value measured. You will agree with me that hard and fast rules cannot be laid down governing all schools, regardless of needs and conditions which prevail in different localities. In science Creeds are Progress is The conditions that manual-training organizers meet are so changeable that we cannot "fix" anything. There is no such thing as fixation. the knowledge of yesterday gives way to the discoveries of today. being changed to harmonize with a new social order of things. the keynote in all departments of thought and activity. Progress must characterize education as well. New conditions demand new practices, and practices must be in accordance with the signs of the times. In manual training as in no other department of education we are dealing in a very intimate manner with children, their environment, and the conditions under which they are to be educated. We must if our work be truly effective suit the work to our local conditions. What might be found a justified practice in one community would not meet the requirements in another. The work must be adapted to the child, not the child to the work. In times past we have aimed to make clothespins of an approved pattern. We have adopted bodily courses "made in Germany" and forced them upon altogether different types of boys and girls for whom they were not designed. It is expedient for us to make no attempt to formulate a course of study and call it "the one." However applicable a course might be for one place, the different conditions at another would not be met by it. Important as a consideration of tools and equipment may be in determining a course of study; important too as exercises and problems may be and the many technical details that perplex the teacher; vital as these are in shaping and giving content to manual training on the material side, it is for us to restrict our consideration to the principles which make manual training truly worth while, and which secure for it a recognized place on the school program. Unless a course in handwork is based on these principles it appears to me our efforts are quite useless. An intensive study of manual training or even an incidental visit to the usual lesson in manual training cannot fail to convince one that many of our efforts are valueless and that much of what is claimed for it can be questioned. Why is this so? Why this doubt of the efficacy of manual training even on the part of those most interested? Is it due to the fact that we have not brought the philosophy down from the clouds and made it practicable? Or is the pedagogy of handwork understood by the elect few, while the application of the principles is left to the uninitiated? Certainly the limited meager training possessed by a great many teachers accounts for the sharp criticism provoked against manual training by Bruce R. Payne, of the University of Virginia. He says: Comparatively speaking, the most uneducative, the most unpedagogic, the most unreasonable subject taught in American elementary schools today is handwork in any of its forms. Observe whatever recitations you please and you will have the privilege of witnessing one which to a large extent is void of real thought, void of pedagogical principles, void of reason upon the part of the pupils, but abounding in dogmatism, disconnected facts, with an abundance of doing, but with no conscious theory in the doing. The child's reasoning faculties are not seriously applied in the process of learning. He is not given a large principle to reason out in its details but is simply left to follow in the most servile manner such directions as are given him. The training of the pupil is not the chief idea in this process. Until the teacher has a thought in mind and succeeds in getting that thought into the child's mind, all handwork amounts to nothing but a mere handling of tools and materials. Handwork is not properly educative until the doing upon the part of the teacher and pupils is the conscious application of a clearly conceived theory. So long as it is conducted upon any other basis than this the teacher is nothing more than a carpenter, a seamstress, or a cook. Is this a true picture? In part I think it is. And what is more to be regretted handwork is but an element for display, a show, a mockery of sincerity of purpose. The same writer further says: This attitude and method is unpedagogic and uneducative for no stress is laid upon the rich field of thought represented by the many phases of handwork in vogue in our schools. They do not lead the pupil to sympathize with the great fields of real life from which things are taken. He may be prepared for doing a certain thing, but is not prepared for life at all. In fact all this kind of teaching does not look so much to the growth of the learner and the needs of society, but to the skill in rapidity and the production of a finished article. The pupils thus trained never do much more than the actual performances taught them in the school, for the power to reason in general or in particular is not trained at all. I offer no apology for quoting Mr. Payne at length. While he has overdrawn the picture we must admit there is more truth than fiction in what he says. It is not for us to condemn the worst, and still the worst pursue, but it s in the light of systematic examination, consideration, and deliberation to discover, if we can, the basis upon which it rests, the end which it serves, and the means and methods best suited to accomplish those ends. When our various courses of handwork are subjected to an analysis as indicated above, we can assign them to a legitimate place in the curriculum. And this formulation will not be the work of any one person in any one place, but it will be the fruitage of all interested in this particular phase of educational effort. Only by patient, earnest, original, and systematic examination and experimentation can we contribute to that body of thought and activity for which the term manual training shall stand. What can we advance as the basis of manual training? I would have you conceive that the main definite end of manual training for the individual is the systematic training of the hands in constructive work thru the instrumentality of tools and the manipulation of materials. Manual training is physical training and as such must be systematically taught in order to get any return worth the effort. It is intellectual training in that it imparts a knowledge of tools, materials, and processes. This knowledge added to systematized physical training should make for power and efficiency in social and industrial service, in so far as the individual can participate in such service. The basis of manual training is educational. How is the educational value of any course in manual training to be determined? The educational value of any course in handwork is not to be judged solely by the character of the things constructed. Only in the way the exercises contribute to the child's future development, all his life, are they to be judged. In what the exercises teach of ways and processes of doing, the nature and characteristics of the materials used in construction, have they any value. If they do not connect very directly with anything in practical life and contribute to an understanding of industrial and social facts and forces, and at the same time make for social and industrial efficiency and well-being, it were better to abandon manual training and substitute something in its place. What is the aim of manual training? This is an old question, one nevertheless to be uppermost in our minds in shaping courses of study. The completed exercise is not an end in itself, but is simply the concrete approach to an end. The object affords skill in the manipulation of tools and materials, and makes for power. By skill is meant growth of power and control over the things of the mind and hand in any form of useful effort. Intelligent and systematic training makes for skill and power which is no mean accomplishment. A good course in manual training is characterized by orderly sequential growth and development. As a rule manual training departments in public schools are conducted in a go-as-you-please, slipshod, aimless, and almost purposeless manner. Like infinity, "beginning everywhere and ending nowhere." Skill is a matter of growth, and growth comes thru systematic, intelligent exercise and training. Skill means knowledge of technique, but it is not the end and final aim of a course in manual training. To quote Professor Chamberlain, "I would have technique, but if it had to be gained at the expense of producing boys with individuality gone, with independence dwarfed, and power and leadership undeveloped, I would bury technique and look for soul." An adequate course is a flexible course-adequate because it lends itself to individual initiative on the part of the pupil, permitting of planning and |
