св. Published January, February, March, April, May, June, September Composed and Printed By THE OFFICIAL ORGAN of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH EDITORIAL BOARD JAMES FLEMING HOSIC, Advisory Editor H. D. ROBERTS, Assistant Editor Representing the National Council of Teachers of English REWEY BELLE INGLIS, University of Minnesota; CONRAD T. LOGAN, Harrisonburg (Virginia) A year spent in considering the progress of English-teaching in this country leads to discontent. We who are charged with instruction in the use and enjoyment of our mother-tongue are filled with zeal for our cause. We show a commendable fertility in devices for improving the product of our daily efforts. Many of our number with admirable patience investigate problems arising from what we teach and how we teach. Yet one who ponders over the present state of our subject is filled with discontent. This feeling of dissatisfaction may be traced to two facts: first, as practitioners in the classroom we are not agreed upon the goals it is most desirable for us to attain; second, although we peruse our professional periodicals, we do not know what is really established about the teaching of English. Let us dwell for a moment on the first item. What is our judgment about the goals of English teaching? Anyone who has served on an English committee knows that we are not agreed on the purposes of English instruction. From rules for the use of the comma to objectives in character-training through literature, there is hardly any proposition that is offered for approval that does not become a subject for sharp debate. A member of the National Council once made an exhaustive research into this lack of agreement. He found a thousand different aims, each of which is considered essential by a quarter of our profession. Eighty-eight per cent of the judgments he secured did concur on one aim, thus giving it first place among all the aims that English teachers should achieve. And what was that aim? Was it skill in communicating one's thoughts clearly by means of language? No! Was it power to gain enriching experiences from literature? No! It was "the ability to spell correctly without hesitation all the ordinary words of one's writing vocabulary." Another investigator tried to find out what elements in student themes are considered most important by able teachers of composition. He discovered that such teachers were most diverse in rating the actual themes handed in by the boys and girls. They disagreed also about the importance of unity in composition or the worth of a story written in short, choppy sentences. They were in pretty close accord on style. Take a simple idea, such as "The pony quieted down." There seems little opportunity in such a thought for a flight of Fourth-of-July oratory. Yet if the phraseology were "stepped up" so that the idea was expressed in this ornate fashion, "Our charger eventually regained his composure," these experienced raters of student writing united in putting that version second or third in a scale of thirteen levels of merit. Remember that these reports of divergence of opinion are not taken from the unconsidered remarks of novices. They are found in scientific studies, which were based on the deliberate judgments of experienced, skilful, professionally minded teachers. Is it not safe to conclude that as a body we teachers in the classroom do not know the true purposes of our endeavors? A similar state of confusion has been found among the leaders. In fact, one of the high officials of our Council has tabulated the essentials prescribed in the progressive courses of study over the country. She hoped to discover thereby the minima set down for mastery. What are the results? She learns that these committees, composed of the most prominent teachers in their respective communities, who have deliberated long and thoughtfully in framing the curricula, differ widely on the minima that should be prescribed. No item except business letter forms and the punctuation of quotations appears in even half of these courses. Obviously the leaders in English in this nation do not agree on so important a matter as the bare essentials in our field. We must conclude that English teachers by and large do not know the specific purposes that should be our indispensable guides. |