IMG86

CD

JM)

Ernst Mach

torical dcvdopmcnt of thcorics. Mach’s primary purposc in rccom-mcnding a historical approach was to make contcmporary science morc understandablc, not to make past science morę understandablc.⁵

Drawing on his own childhood cxpcricnce, and rcasoning from his belief in “unconscious memory,” Mach opposed carly cducation for children. In fact, he thought it could be harmful* Either the child’s lack of succcss might turn him against certain typcs of learning, as Mach was turncd against learning Greek and Latin, or what he did learn might destroy or confusc what lic knew by “instinct” (i.c., from inherited “unconscious memory”).

Mach also opposed toys for children, cspccially elaborate commcrcial toys. He belicved that they were decadcnt and slowcd a child’s de-velopmcnt toward adulthood. Toys kept the child awkward and ten-tative in constructing things; they helpcd to prevcnt sclf-rcliance, and like fairy tales, they led to daydrcams, confusion of fantasy with rc ality, and interfered with the dcvclopment of a reliable approach toward causal undcistanding.⁷

Ernst Mach believed that the main purpose in elementary scicndfic instruction should not be "the acquisition of a sum of positivc knowl-edge, but rather a certain cducation in obscrvation and cspccially in scientific thinking, an adjustment to a morę dclincating logical approach. . . .”⁸ He accompanied this emphasis with the opinion that pupils should havc morc free timc to learn on their own. He especially dislikcd "overfeeding” children dctails and memory work.

How can the mind thrive when matter is heaped on matter, and ncw materials piled constantly on old, undigested matcrials? ^!ł

Furtherinorc, thoughts cannot be accumulated bcyond a certain limit in a single head, any morc than the producc of a field can be inereased bcyond certain limits.

I bclicvc that the amount of matter nccessary for a uscful cducation, such as should be offered to all pupils of a preparatory school, is very smali. . . . I should cut down considcrably the number of school hours and the work done outside the school.¹⁰

I know nothing morc terrible than the poor crcaturcs who have learned too much. Instead of that powcrful judgment which would probably havc grown up if they had learned nothing, their thoughts crccp timidly after words, principlcs, and formulae, constantly by the same paths. What they havc acquircd is a spidcr’s web of thoughts too weak to furnish supports, but complicatcd cnough to producc confusion.¹¹

lii

The Industrial Revolution and the risc of democratic idcas in the mid-dlc of the nineteenth century encouraged widespread demands for educational reform throughout Europę and America. Many pcople wanted less Greek and Latin and morc practical and science-oricntcd cducation. Professional cducators, howcvcr, defendcd “humanistic” cducation largcly on the basis of its morał and civilizing value. Lct us now considcr an important educator, Friedrich Paulscn (1846-1908), philosopher, historian of cducation, and leader of gymnasium reform in Germany who began to challenge this argument, and who has givcn the following account of his own metamorphosis:

When 1 first lecturcd on pedagogies, I had cndeavorcd to show, as best I could, that the classical languagcs must always rcmain the foundation of higher cducation. It was not long, howcvcr, before my convictions under went a change. brought about by my historical studics. It appeared that the orthodo.\ vicw just referred to was really of quitc rccent origin, bcing hardly older than the new Gymnasium itsclf, which was the crcation of the Nineteenth Century. The old grammar school (jLateinschulc) had bccn cntircly innoccnt of such idcals. The languagcs taught therc wcrc not taught for the sake of any "formalistic” and “humanistic” education, but solcly for the purpose of acquiring the nccessary facility of expression in the ianguagc conccrncd which also explains why Latin predominated to such a degree.¹²

Paulscn’s discovcry of the rcccnt origin of the ‘‘humanistic argument” with respcct to instruction in Greek and Latin appeared in print in his History of Learned Instruction (Vol. I), published in 1885.¹³ This book gavc backbone to the reform movemcnt and madę Paulsen its best-known champion. The reform movcmcnt in Germany and Austria wanted to redress the halance among the Gymnasium, Realgymnasium, and Realschule. The Gymnasium emphasized Greek and Latin; the Realgymnasium stressed Latin, science, and modern languages; and the Realschule concentratcd on science and modern languagcs. The troublc was that even as latc as 1900 ovcr 80 pcrcent of all secondary school graduates (at least in Prussia) came from the Latin- and Grcck-orientcd gymnasiums.

Paulsen advocated morc rcalgymnasiums and realschulcs, fewer hours for students in all schools, and, cspccially, fewer hours in Latin. He also wanted Greek and upper division mathematics madę optional

*35