6. Better Methods Should be Adopted in Education.

Instead of imparting all but elementary instruction in Latin, he directed that teaching be in the vernacular. Though a matter of course to us, this was a new idea to the men of the 16th century, and soon revolutionized the common schools.

Luther condemned the extreme harshness and cruelty customary in the old schools; and taught that children were to be dealt with gently and kindly, being ruled by love and not by fear, so that they might have joy in their tasks. Much liberty and opportunity for self-expression were to be allowed them. As far as possible, concrete things should be substituted for books as materials of study. Subjects of instruction should be few, lessons simple, and there should be frequent repetition and review. The languages should be taught, not in any dry theoretical manner, but in as practical a way as possible, by contact with the living teacher, and direct daily use.

It was doubtless a realization of Luther's sound and forwardlooking ideas concerning methods, that led the United States Commissioner of Education, Dr. Claxton, to say in a recent address, "The real father of the Gary System of Schools is Martin Luther."

These are some of the leading pregnant and dynamic ideas of the great Reformer in the realm of public education. How modern they sound! How fully was this prophet of the 16th century in harmony with the best educational thought of the 20th century! Dittes says, "If we survey the pedagogy of Luther in all its extent, and imagine it fully in practice, what a splendid picture the schools and education of the sixteenth century would present. We should have courses of study, text-books, teachers, methods, principles, and modes of discipline, schools and school regulations, that could serve as models for our own age. But alas! Luther, like all great men, was little understood by his age and adherents; and what was understood was inadequately esteemed, and what was esteemed was only imperfectly realized.”

In spite of the uncertainty of the times, the ravages of the Peasant War, the incessant opposition of his enemies, and the woful lack of necessary funds, Luther was able to accomplish a great deal in behalf of education, even in his own generation. Commissioned by the Duke of Mansfeld to originate a system of education for

his native town of Eisleben, he established primary and secondary schools, which both in curriculum and in method, became models for many others throughout Germany. He influenced the various Protestant cities and states to adopt forms of government containing provisions for the founding and management of schools. A secular school system was established in Saxony as early as 1528, which became the fore-runner of all state school systems. During the Reformation period alone sixteen hundred middle schools were established, and by the dawn of the 17th century one hundred and fifty higher schools were in full operation. Thus it came about that the Protestant provinces were soon well supplied with schools. As Emil de Lavelye well says, in countries touched by the Reformation, education and enlightenment became general.

But if Luther's influence on the schools of his own age was great, his influence on those of subsequent ages has been greater. His contribution to education was of permanent value, and is still operative. The suggestions he made, and the principles he enunciated, have been embodied in our modern public schools, and are aiding in their further evolution and development. Thus in view of the deep impression he made upon education in his own time, and the profound influence he projected into the coming centuries, we must class Martin Luther among the great educators of the world.

GEORGE I. BRINKERHOFF, PH.D., WEBSTER TRAINING SCHOOL,

T

NEWARK, N. J.

HE essence of reading is getting thought from printed matter. It is not rapidity in calling words; it is not pleasing expression; it is not a study of literature. Although all these are worthy aims, still they are secondary and must be attained without submerging the chief aim—the power to interpret written language. In teaching reading, we must focus our attention on the essential purpose and not be led astray by other aims, important though these may be. It is necessary to mention this obvious duty, for most teachers, in their anxiety to produce finished readers, frequently place emphasis on the details and neglect the real problem.

Recently there have appeared several articles advocating the early development of rapid reading. The meagre experiments dealing with reading rate have been quoted to prove that rapidity is economical, for rapid readers usually comprehend the text better than slow readers. Some educated adults seem to read several times as fast as others and still lose nothing of the thought. Although the tests in reading rate made thus far are by no means conclusive, still no one will deny that rapidity is desirable for one who has learned to read, but it is a question if we should pay much attention to rate during the initial stages of learning.

Some authors have pointed out the advantage of the sentence and word methods in developing rapid reading, but in the way these methods are used (or misused) today, the chief object of reading seems to be neglected. Usually the first step in the sentence method is to present a thought and then to write it or print it so that children can see it. Then the children read (repeat) it. At times a sentence is placed before pupils at the outset, is read by the teacher, and then repeated by the children. The procedure in detail varies with the different plans published (story method,

literary-whole method, jingle method, etc.) but the principle is the same in each case; pupils repeat something they know. The very statement of this practice is sufficient to condemn it, for instead of teaching pupils to get thought from print, it gives them the notion that they must give thought to print. This is the reverse of reading. If children have the thought already, what is the incentive to read? Here we have the main object of reading not only overlooked, but hindered by a wrong habit. Even the secondary aim of rapidity is not won, for although this plan may yield rapid utterances, such is not reading.

After pupils read (?) the first sentence they read other sentences in a similar way; that is, the teacher does the reading and the children merely repeat from memory. Sometimes this work is done so thoroughly that pupils can read a whole book from cover to cover-without even looking at the book. Or, they can read with the book upside down. Of course, extensive memory work of this kind is not approved by the advocates of any of the literarywhole methods, but it is true nevertheless that several, lessons must be devoted to the repetition of sentences just when the learner should be acquiring the habit of getting thought from print. A wrong beginning leads to many difficulties, while the correct idea of reading from the very first lesson will save time and energy later on.

The sentence method is supported by the fact that context is an aid to reading-rapid reading, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is only to the experienced reader that context is an aid. Records show that children can read a series of one hundred or five hundred unrelated words about as rapidly as they can read the same number of words when arranged in sentences. They can read backwards as fast as they can read forwards, proving that context is no help to the beginner. It is only through experience in reading that context becomes an aid. The repetition of sentences already known is very different from adult reading, the former being a relatively simple process, while the latter is most complex, having grown up through a vast amount of practice. It is folly to try to force upon beginners the adult way of reading, for it is impossible to do so. The child must pass through all the first stages before he can reach the final stage. He must, through

practice in getting thought, gradually co-ordinate all the partial processes that go to make up reading before he can attain that highly complex process of adult reading. Also, by having pupils repeat what they already know, we deceive both them and ourselves: they and we think they are reading when in fact they have not the slightest ability to gain thought for themselves. All this is not intended to be in condemnation of the sentence method: it is rather a condemnation of the incorrect application of the method. The word method is said to be an aid to rapid reading because it is quicker to read a word at a glance than to decipher it by means of phonics. There is truth in this, but it might be more economical in the long run if children were first given the power to read words by means of phonics. Then, too, this memorizing of words is not thought-getting. Moreover, the word method violates the doctrine that words are to be learned incidentally through actual reading.

Because adults read words as wholes it is supposed that children should do likewise from the very beginning. In reading, the natural tendency is to examine the parts of an unfamiliar word. Adults do this when they meet strange words either in their own or in a foreign language. To beginners most words are unfamiliar in print, and tests show their reading to be almost letter by letter. Adults read with regular eye movements, using an average of four or five eye pauses to a line of print, while children proceed most irregularly with many more pauses to the line, proving that beginners cannot read in the adult way, which, as has already been stated, develops through practice. Whether memorizing words will hasten the ability to read is a question. It does seem that some use should be made of the child's natural tendency to examine parts of words, though I should not advocate a phonetic method. Committing to memory a list of meaningless letter sounds is worse than memorizing lists of words. Some day we shall probably find a way of having pupils use letter sounds without first having to learn them.

It seems clear that the means just suggested for securing rapid reading play havoc with our main problem. The one thing we must do is to have pupils get thought from print, and the time to do it is at the very beginning. It is then that children must get