dividual leader is limited only by the positive or negative emotional reactions on the part of those who are being led.

20. Character Building

[DEWEY, John, "Froebel's Educational Principles," Elementary School Record, June, 1900, Vol. I, pp. 150-151.]

There is no ground for holding that the teacher should not suggest anything to the child until he has consciously expressed a want in that direction. A sympathetic teacher is quite likely to know more clearly than the child himself what his own instincts are and mean. But the suggestion must fit in with the dominant mode of growth in the child; it must serve simply as stimulus to bring forth more adequately what the child is already blindly striving to do. Only by watching the child and seeing the attitude that he assumes towards suggestions can we tell whether they are operating as factors in furthering the child's growth, or whether they are external, arbitrary impositions interfering with normal growth.

The same principle applies even more strongly to so-called dictation work. Nothing is more absurd than to suppose that there is no middle term between leaving a child to his own unguided fancies and likes or controlling his activities by a formal succession of dictated directions. As just intimated, it is the teacher's business to know what powers are striving for utterance at a given period in the child's development, and what sorts of activity will bring these to helpful expression, in order then to supply the requisite stimuli and needed materials. The suggestion, for instance, of a playhouse, the suggestion that comes from seeing objects that have already been made to furnish it, from seeing other children at work, is quite sufficient definitely to direct the activities of a normal child of five. Imitation and suggestion come in naturally and inevitably, but only as instruments to help him carry out his own wishes and ideas. They serve to make him realize, to bring to consciousness, of what he already is striving for in a vague, confused, and therefore ineffective way. From the psychological standpoint it may safely be said that when a teacher has to rely upon a series of dictated directions, it is just because the child has no image of his own of what is to be done or why it is to be done. Instead, therefore, of gaining power of control by conforming to directions, he is really losing it-made dependent upon an external source.

QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

1. Explain psychologically each of the following statements: a. "Willing is in the last analysis a psychological process of attending" (Angell).

b. What "we-will-do" depends in part, upon what "we-have-done.” 2. What is will?

3. How can the will be trained? What can the teacher do toward training the "will" of her pupils?

4. How may ideals be acquired most effectively?

5. What part do imitation and suggestion play in character building?

6. "The conscience (of children) is derived wholly from the authority of surrounding adults, and their moral habits are formed by the law of effect." Explain in detail.

7. A pupil borrows a library book. It is returned with the paper cover missing and the cover of the book soiled. How can the pupil be brought to realize his obligation to care for the book!

8. Explain the quotation from Pillsbury: "The control of action is primarily control of ideas or of sensations. Except in this fact, that movement follows upon idea, the laws of action are the laws of attention, of perception, and of reasoning."

9. Outline a plan for character building in children of the grades. Do the same psychological principles apply in character building that apply in the teaching of the school subjects?

10. Find out what the "Iowa Plan" of Character Education is. How may you apply it to your pupils? Is the Plan based upon sound principles of psychology?

11. Investigate the character education plan and materials of the Character Education Institute, Washington, D. C. Evaluate their materials and plan.

12. Which of the two attitudes listed below is the more conducive to sane mental health?

(a) The attitude that he has a hand in his own making. (b) The attitude that he is an organism that responds in a more or less mechanical way to situations that are presented.

13. How may score cards be used in character building? 14. What training would you recommend for children who have trouble in making decisions, and who worry over decisions after they are made?

15. What is the religious consciousness?

16. What psychological principles should guide us in the religious education of the child?

17. How would you explain will in terms of behavioristic psychology?

REFERENCES

ANGELL, J. R., Introduction to Psychology (New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1918), Chap. xv.

BOLTON, F. E., Everyday Psychology for Teachers (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1923), Chap. xvii.

CAMERON, E. H., Psychology and the School (New York, Century Co., 1921), Chap. xi.

COLVIN, S. S., The Learning Process (New York, Macmillan Co., 1921), Chaps. iii, iv.

and BAGLEY, W. C., Human Behavior (New York, Macmillan Co., 1913), Chaps. iv, vii, xi.

HORNE, H. H., Idealism in Education (New York, Macmillan Co., 1910), Chap. iv.

Psychological Principles of Education (New York, Macmillan Co., 1906), Part IV.

JAMES, William, Principles of Psychology (New York, Macmillan Co., 1890), Vol. II, Chap. xxvi.

JUDD, C. H., Psychology (Boston, Ginn & Co., 1917), Chap. xv. MARTIN, Herbert, Formative Factors in Character (New York, Longmans, Green & Co., 1925), Chap. viii.

MOORE, T. V., Dynamic Psychology (New York, Longmans, Green & Co., 1924), Part VI.

PILLSBURY, W. B., Attention (London, Sonnenschein, 1908), Chap. x.

Essentials of Psychology (New York, Macmillan Co., 1920), Chap. xiii.

THOMSON, Godfrey H., Instinct, Intelligence and Character (New York, Longmans, Green & Co., 1925), Chap. xxii.

WOODWORTH, R. S., Psychology (New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1921), Chap. xx.

CHAPTER XIX

TRANSFER OF TRAINING

Earlier in our educational history it was believed that the training one received from the study of any subject helped in all others. In fact, the more uninteresting the subject was, the more it was supposed to sharpen one's mind. From 1905 to 1915 the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme. The rapid accumulations of experimental evidence both in general learning and the learning of school subjects has enabled us to arrive at a more definite conclusion regarding the facts in the case. Our selections are chosen with a view of presenting the theory of formal discipline (1,2,3); the theories of Angell (6), Judd (7,8,9,10), Thorndike (17), Koffka (4), and Spearman (5) purporting to explain how transfer takes place; and the representative experimental evidence for transfer (12,13,14,15,16,17).

Representative explanations have been selected for the purpose of challenging thought and showing the limitations of any one view.

1. The Theory of Formal Discipline

[HORNE, H. H., Psychological Principles of Education, Chap. vi, pp. 66– 79. Copyright, 1906, by the Macmillan Co. Reprinted by permission.]

Previous to the time of Professor Horne's book from which the selection below is abstracted, very little work had been done to test the validity of the theory of formal discipline. But with a rare insight or intuition, as one might say, the author probed to the very heart of the whole problem. Subsequent studies have quite generally justified his conclusions and interpretations.

... In Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, we find the following definition (of formal discipline): "The

doctrine of the applicability of mental power, however gained, to any department of human activity." Perhaps the idea would be expressed should we say, the theory of formal discipline asserts that mental power developed in one subject is usable in any other. . .

There are certain weighty and not wholly answerable arguments against the theory in its historic form. The first is, it rests upon an antiquated psychology, the so-called "faculty psychology" .. . . . and in accord with this notion of mind the theory of formal discipline held that if a faculty were once trained it was good for any service. . .

...

Second, the historic theory rests upon mistaken analogies.

Third, historically the doctrine was rather taken for granted than scrutinized, criticized, and accepted. ...

Fourth, the wide prevalence of the theory to-day in its historic form is due mainly to "social heredity," that is to imitation and suggestion. . . .

Fifth, it contradicts common experience.

Sixth, if more were necessary, the theory in its historic form contradicts experimental evidence. .

Is there no truth at all, then, in the theory, but all mistake and delusion? I think not. These objections do demand that the historic form of the theory be modified; they do not demand that it be given up in toto. The modification necessary would appear, as it seems to me, in the following statement of principles, viz., mental power developed in one subject is applicable to any other in direct proportion to their similarity. Though stated in exact mathematical form, it is not possible, because of the complexity of the subject, to demonstrate its exact truth; but that it has a considerable degree of probability can be shown.

The principle means, the greater the similarity between two subjects, the greater the applicability of mental power developed in one to the other; the less the similarity, the less the applicability. . . .

. . . There are certain practical conclusions from this largely theoretical inquiry which we must not miss. The first is, there is an element of truth in the historic theory of formal discipline, but it is not the whole truth.

The second is, formal education is an uneconomical way of fitting for life, as there is always loss in the transfer.

The third is, the economical way of educating is to put the life situations and the life occupations into the school. This would mean less of the formal studies like grammar and arith