of vision and strength of intellect. In the training of the teacher, therefore, due allowance must be made for these qualities. The person who has no considerable grasp upon either the ends of education or the means of instruction must approximate in his training the training of the artisan. The normal school that has to do with students without elementary training ought not to pursue the same methods as the normal school which deals with students of higher academic attainments. The difference, however, consists mainly in the amount of drill required in fixing the necessary habits.

Every workman, whether artisan or artist, must know the nature of the material with which he is dealing. Both alike must have some idea of what is to be accomplished. The knowledge of these two factors will determine what instruments and means must be employed in the work. The study of the child and of the society of which the child is a part, of psychology, sociology, of the history and principles of education, may be expected to give a better knowledge of the pupil and of his possibilities, and a clearer understanding of what is worth working for in education. This knowledge, coupled with an understanding of the requirements of the life which the pupil ought eventually to lead, must determine the nature of the influences which can be brought to bear upon the pupil. Important among these influences are the subjects of instruction in our schools and the manifold activities of school life. These are the teacher's tools. Of course, all teachers must know the subjects which they teach.

But how about the skill which is required in adapting the means to the material and in doing the work in such a manner as to attain the desired results? If the apprentice be ignorant, relatively speaking, we put him under a master-workman, and that masterworkman will show him what he is to do. He will teach him how to use the instruments; if necessary, he will guide his hand in doing what he is told to do, and he will keep him at it until the habit is fixed. In other words, the apprentice is (1) given to understand what he is to do, (2) shown how to do it, and (3) compelled to perform the action until satisfactory results are obtained.

With a higher degree of intelligence the workman can be taught something of the quality and strength of materials, of the laws of mechanics, physics, and chemistry, and of other subjects which have a bearing upon his work. The man who is well trained in mechanical engineering may be unable to make the simplest implement or bit of machinery used in his profession; but it is safe to say that, if such a man is thoroly anxious to perfect himself in any mechanical art, he will not only acquire the skill more quickly than a more ignorant workman, but he will always be the better prepared to improve upon his art. So it is in the training of teachers—an important consideration is the degree of intellectual strength which we have a right to expect of the pupil-teacher. If he is weak intellectually and the period of special training is short, it is impossible to get very far away from the apprentice's method. He must be told what to do, shown how to do it, and keep doing it until desirable habits are fixed.

Of course, we expect in the teacher-certainly in the teacher with normal-school training something more than we find in the artisan; hence, the normal school does something more than instruct in methods and give practice in teaching. But whether the pupil-teacher be strong or weak, the skill which he acquires in teaching must come from experience under proper direction.

The topic for our discussion this afternoon, as I understand it, is: What shall be the nature of this direction? Taking into account what the pupil-teacher brings from his other instructors in a normal school, what further directions should be given for teaching, and how can that teaching be improved thru criticism?

I think we ought to realize that criticism is not picking and nagging pupil-teachers. It does not consist in telling them that this way is right and that wrong. There must be criticism both affirmative and negative, which must be categorically stated. But criticism, as we understand it, must be constructive.

I have attempted to outline some of the most important matters which may properly

be considered under this head. I put them before you for your consideration this afternoon. They are as follows:

1. General aims of criticism: (a) to illustrate and apply theory; (b) to detect mannerisms and to check bad habits and practice; (c) to secure acceptable methods of teaching.

2. Special objects of criticism: (a) teacher's personal appearance, dress, etc.; (b) use of language, voice, etc.; (c) appreciation of personal peculiarities and needs of pupils in class; (d) knowledge of subjectmatter to be taught; (e) selection and arrangement of materials of instruction; lesson plans; (f) methods of instruction; reviews; presentation of new facts; summing up; fixing lesson by drill and application; (g) securing attention and interest; use of subject-matter; art of questioning; discipline; (h) personal influence of teacher upon pupils.

3. Persons to give criticism: (a) instructors in psychology and general methods; (b) instructors in academic subjects; (c) special critic-teachers.

DISCUSSION

PRESIDENT J. N. WILKINSON, State Normal School, Emporia, Kan. President Wilkinson said that he would make no attempt to cover the points given in the outline in the program. It had been well prepared and gave valuable suggestions in every item. It might be worth while to add as a general purpose of criticism the fixing of good habits in teaching. It is not enough to know that the student-teacher has done a little good work. A small sample, however good it may be, does not assure the excellence of the whole future product. The student-teacher, nerved up to a special effort or a few special efforts, may drop to a much lower standard unless this excellent teaching becomes a fixed habit. This consideration would suggest that a student-teacher who has already had some years of experience may need to do more work under criticism, in order to overcome bad habits and form good ones, than would a student-teacher who has never formed any bad habits in teaching.

There must be such formation of habits in the line of scientific teaching as will make the teacher safe to do at once the thing that is philosophically correct without pausing to reflect. The teacher who must reason out the method for each new case cannot move swiftly enough to meet the new emergencies as they arise. The best theoretical preparation that can be given will not prepare for dealing with the peculiarities of individual pupils. The illustration that the master of a trade must understand his material does not indicate the power that the teacher must acquire. His material could never be brought to uniform excellence, nor can anyone tell in advance how the pupil will behave under any given conditions. The teacher must acquire a sufficient surplus, a sufficient reserve power, to enable him to meet firmly any emergency that may arise. The student-teacher needs criticism and help until he has fixed good habits, so that it is easier to do good teaching than poor teaching.

GUY E. MAXWELL, superintendent of training department, State Normal School, Winona, Minn.-For the purposes of this discussion the elements of teaching skill may be thought of as of three kinds: (1) The mechanics of the schoolroom; for example, the passing of material, the seating of pupils, the regulation of temperature, and the like. These things are easily open to direction or change thru criticism. (2) What we may call the technics of teaching, which has to do with questioning, lesson plans, method of instruction, and so forth. These things are also open to change and direction thru suggestion and criticism, tho they are much less objective than the first kind, and thus less easily influenced by the critic. (3) Lastly, there is the vital phase of the art, dependent upon the subtle power of personality, and having to do with such things as the interpretation of the child's mental states, the knowing what to do next, and the like. teacher's inner self, and is pretty largely born in him. slow growth and thru the most skillful suggestions. phases of teaching skill, tho without the other two, few teachers have been known to fail.

This element springs from the It is open to change only thru Having the last of these three

Having the first two without the last, few have been known to succeed. In what I shall have to say I shal: have in mind the third phase of the art only.

One part of this vital element in teaching is spontaneity or naturalness, the giving forth of one's best effort with entire lack of self-consciousness. Criticism, it seems to me, should be influenced constantly by the necessity of preserving this life-element. The best part of teaching is so fully a spiritual process, is so fully dependent upon the subtle intercourse of mind with mind, that conscious efforts at following externals, devices, or imposed directions may easily destroy this delicate relationship. Overmuch criticism is like overmuch pruning. Pruning is a necessary process in the symmetrical development of a tree, but the pruning should be pretty fully governed by the vigor of growth, for it is more largely an incident in the tree's growth than a cause of it.

In the first place, then, criticism should be in the large. Aims should be emphasized, results carefully examined, and the general tendencies of the work studied and directed. Just as in reading we desire to take the child's mind away from himself, and instead of saying to him, "You're reading with too little force," or even saying, "Read more distinctly," we prefer to say, "Read so we may all hear," so whenever possible the aim to be reached should be made the objective point. The student's attitude, then, is not so much a matter of inhibition, or even self-exertion, as a desire to reach a clearly defined aim in the best way that the personality and temperament of the student may suggest or make possible. If we say to a student teacher, "Make these pupils more fully appreciate this lesson," he does not need to think so much wherein he is failing as to think whereby he may reach this end. If we direct the teacher's mind to the object sought, then gesticulation, facial expression, forceful illustration, or what not, will result in terms of the teacher's own personality.

Again, critics should permit much latitude in the planning of subject wholes, while holding the teacher responsible for results, and for a statement of the principles upon which his practice is based. There is a temptation to permit, or to encourage, studentteachers to work by the day; to be related to the critic as the laborer to his foreman, or the apprentice to his master. When this is true, no large grasp of the work is secured, no rational and self-directed efforts are put forth, and at the end any success is due to the skill of the critic, and not to that of the student. I believe that some student-teachers are over-criticised, and that passivity rather than activity is their resulting attitude. The "inverse Socratic" method should largely obtain, that in which the pupil comes to the critic with questions, having found his own difficulties, or at least having doubted his success. Too often the prospective teacher's attitude is: "Well, here I am, ready to be made into a teacher. What criticisms have you to offer?" This shows that the cart has been put before the horse, and that the critic may have helped to put it there. The student must pretty largely work out his own salvation, else he is not saved. Patience is the virtue on the critic's part that permits the learner to get the victory for himself, while too much criticism steals, not only the victory, but the possibility of it.

Again, we ought to avoid the harsh criticism of minor errors and personal idiosyncrasies which cannot be changed because too deeply rooted. The criticism of these things should be made in constant reference to their subordination to fundamentals. The perfect sympathy between teacher and student should not be jeopardized by leaving to the critic the work of reforming his "personal appearance, dress, etc.," or the "use of language, voice, etc.," as noted in the outline. The teacher of academic subjects in the normal department should attend to these faults before the student-teacher ever comes to the children. Moreover, the fact that these things are matters of habit, and are changed only thru long effort, is an additional reason why their correction should be begun early in the course, and not left until near the end.

The critic's attitude of mind is to be that of full sympathy with the student-teacher. To make the work sympathetic it must be mutually helpful. There should be mutual growth on the part of the critic and pupil. They should together talk over the work in

the light of general aims, principles, and results, and not so much in the light of the critic's personal methods, which of course are individual. Thus criticism has a social rather than an individual aim, and is sympathetic rather than antipathetic. In other words, tho intellectual progress may be made when the teacher is not closely in touch with the inner life of the pupil, when one is teaching a fine art, where personality rather than intellect is to be influenced, the union of mind must be perfect.

Joseph Landon summarizes the matter in these words:

It is the critic's business to put himself in harmony with the work, and to mentally adjust himself to the teacher's condition. He has to interpret as well as appraise, to see deeply, to expound clearly, and to judge justly and intelligently. Sympathy with the work is essential. Good criticism is not intolerant, and is simply neither praise nor blame; it is broader and more helpful than opinion alone, no matter how correct. It is an intense illumination of the inner and finer qualities of the work, a full recognition of its spirit and purpose, and an accurate display of its meaning and value.

Finally, then, the mechanics of teaching is open to instruction, the technic of teaching is open to illumination, but the spirit of teaching is open to inspiration.

MISS SARAH J. WALTER, principal of training department, State Normal School, Willimantic, Conn.- It is important, first, to determine what is meant by criticism from a training teacher's point of view. To one group of teachers it means one thing, and quite a different thing to another group. It may mean individual and personal talks concerning errors in daily teaching; or conferences held for the purpose of discussing class-room problems; or general talks upon discipline and pedagogy.

Criticism should be the expression of judgment, based upon pedagogical principles, on the teaching work, and on the effect of this teaching upon the activities of the child. The general motive or aim of criticism should be to surround the individual preparing for the work of teaching with such influences as shall help him to form and accept ideals, and, further, to enable him to become self-directive in the realization of these ideals.

All criticism should be constructive and never destructive. Nothing so discourages a young teacher and tends to make her pessimistic as to receive criticisms which dwell unduly upon her faults. It is more helpful for the critic to point out the better way and to encourage the teacher to attain that. The model - the ideal, and not the defectshould be constantly before the worker.

Criticism should demand active self-direction on the part of the student-teacher, and should not leave a way open for imitation. Thus only can the individuality of the teacher be preserved. No branch of educational work demands such rare qualifications as the work of the training teacher.

Criticisms of teaching work should follow soon after the exercise itself, that the memory of each feature may be fresh. This criticism should always leave the student at the close of the discussion stronger and more hopeful than he was at the opening. All personal criticism should be given in private, and this should be searching, honest, friendly, tho sometimes severe.

One of the most important duties of a critic-teacher is to maintain such a standard in practice as to prevent weak or immature students, especially those who have not shown strong professional tendencies, from going out as teachers. The true test of criticism in a normal school is the work of the graduate after he has left school.

PRINCIPAL THEODORE B. Noss, State Normal School, Pa.-I think it unfortunate that we have certain words in our educational vocabulary. I think there is no place for the word "criticism." It was common, years ago, to have a feeling of antagonism between the training teacher and the student-teacher. We are much helped by criticism, if it is given in a kindly spirit. The training teacher who does not submit herself to the same test that the student-teachers have to submit to is not doing the right kind of work.

PROFESSOR F. G. BLAIR, of the Eastern Illinois Normal School. I admire Mr. Maxwell's clear presentation, but I think the tendency is to withhold frank criticism. I know that after a night of tossing, because of criticism by a person now in this room, I came back the next day resolved to succeed.

Mr. Wilkinson has suggested that a student-teacher must learn to stand on his own feet and must not be an imitator. The student-teacher must see good teaching. I am not afraid of imitation. We must lead them to see a few things, that they may see more. point should be added, that the teacher must be brought to feel

I rather think that this his weakness.

PRESIDENT Z. X. SNYDER, State Normal School, Greeley, Colo.-There are three relations to be considered: First, the relation of the normal department to the training school. There must be a sympathetic, intelligent interrelation of these two departments. The training school is the center of interest. Second, each department should know the work of the other. Third, it is important that they know that they are doing the same work. There is no place in a normal school for an academic department which does not realize itself in the training school. When I find schools where the heads of the departments disparage the work of the training school, I am sure the condition is bad. To the practitioner in the training school I would say: Keep your mouth shut, seek criticism, love the children.

PROFESSOR EDWIN C. PAGE, of Northern Illinois Normal School, De Kalb, Ill.--- Mr. Noss has suggested what I should like to speak of particularly. We recognize the danger to the student-teacher of criticism, which should always be so given as to make studentteachers critics of themselves. At our institution members of the faculty teach model lessons twice a week, teaching in the model school. In the following discussion our student-teachers are expected to criticise the conduct of that recitation. The result is, first, that it conveys to those student teachers the true ideal of criticism. In the second place, the student learns correct methods of criticism by criticising his instructor, and gains at the same time ability to criticise his own teaching. One great benefit is the effect on the faculty. Every member is certain to be careful in planning and conducting his lesson, if it is to be criticised by the student-teachers. He has to deal with the very questions with which his student-teachers deal. The plan is beneficial from every standpoint, as we see it, and we have tried it three years.

DR. FRANK M. MCMURRY, professor of theory and practice of teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.- If we eliminate the personal element in criticism, we must give full reason for the fault we point out. We should avoid giving the student-teacher the feeling of being deluged with criticism. Good criticisms, in general, are subject to the same principles as recitations. Any recitation should leave the child feeling that only one, two, or three points are talked about. No matter how many criticisms we have to offer, we should reduce them to two or three points. The critic-teacher may point out every fault, and by this means absolutely check the growth of the studentteacher.

JOHN H. GLOTFELTER, principal of training department, State Normal School, Emporia, Kan.—It seems to me the function of the critic-teacher is primarily to see that the practice-teacher has an ideal; secondarily, to review the result of the effort. That will take away from the teacher, perhaps, the feeling that he is under criticism, and will give him that bearing which he cannot have if self-conscious all the time. The result of this will be an interview with the teacher, which may be either of two kindsone purpose to show the teacher how near he came to hitting the ideal, the other to show how far he missed the ideal. That leads to looking at the fault as rather an impersonal thing. Perhaps you will say that this is ignoring good form in teaching. Perhaps that may come in as a secondary matter; the vital thing is to get at results.

PRESIDENT LIVINGSTON C. LORD, Northern Illinois Normal School, Charleston, Ill., suggested that too much is being said about making criticism mild and pleasant, and this raises the question whether dogmatic statement is not an element of necessity in life. There is such a thing as wasting time in attempting to soften criticism. The person