"Pearson, in his measurement of traits, not by objective tests but by opinions of people who know the individual, finds that boys are more athletic, noisy, self-a.s.sertive, self-conscious; less popular, duller in conscience, quicker-tempered, less sullen, a little duller intellectually and less efficient in penmanship. Heymans and Wiersma, following the same general method as Pearson, state as their general conclusions that the female is more active, more emotional, and more unselfish than the male. "They consider women to be more impulsive, less efficient intellectually, and more fickle than men as a result of the first two differences mentioned above; to be gifted in music, acting, conversation and the invention of stories, as a result in part of the second difference; and to think well of people and to be easily reconciled to them as a result of the third." Thorndike finds the chief differences to be that the female varies less from the average standard, is more observant of small visual details, less often color-blind, less interested in things and their mechanisms, more interested in people and their feelings, less given to pursuing, capturing and maltreating living things, and more given to nursing, comforting and relieving them than is the male. H. Ellis considers the chief differences to be the less tendency to variability, the greater affectability, and the greater primitiveness of the female mind, and the less ability shown by women in dealing with the more remote and abstract interests in life. All the authors emphasize the smallness of the differences; and after all the striking thing is not the differences between the s.e.xes, but the great difference within the same s.e.x in respect to every mental trait tested. The difference of man from man, and woman from woman, in any trait is almost as great as the differences between the s.e.xes in that trait. s.e.x can be the cause, then, of only a fraction of the difference between the original nature of individuals."
It is reasonably certain, then, that a teacher may safely appeal to both boys and girls on the ground of the fundamental instincts, feeling confident that common stimuli will produce largely the same results.
Important as it is that we know what our pupils are from their parentage, it is even more important in the matter of religious instruction that we shall appreciate the force of the varieties of environment that have been operative. Though boys and girls may be essentially alike at the outset of their lives they may be thrown into such a.s.sociations as to make their ideals and conduct entirely different. Fancy the contrast between the case of a girl brought up for fifteen years in a household of refinement and in a companionship of gentility, and the case of a boy who during the same years has been the pal of bullies on street corners. Surely stimuli that are to promote proper reaction in these two cases will have to be suited to the person in question.
Then, too, the teacher must realize that one child may come from a home of faith, confidence, and contentment; whereas, another may come from a home of agitation, doubt, and suspicion. One may have been taught to pray--another may have been led to disbelieve. One may have been stimulated to read over sacred books--another may have been left to peruse cheap, sensational detective stories. To succeed in reaching the hearts of a group of such boys and girls, a teacher surely ought to be aware of individual differences and ought to be fortified with a wealth of material so that the appeal may be as varied as possible. To quote from Thorndike"s _Principles of Education_:
"A teacher has to choose what is for the greatest good of the greatest number. He cannot expect to drive forty children abreast along the highroad of education." "Yet the differences in children should not blind us to their likenesses." "We need general principles and their sagacious application to individual problems."
"The worst error of teachers with respect to individual differences is to neglect them, to form one set of fixed habits for dealing with all children, to teach "the child instead of countless different living individuals." To realize the varieties of human nature, the nature and amount of mental differences, is to be protected against many fallacies of teaching."
Our treatment of individual differences was well summed up in the following paper by B.H. Jacobsen, a member of the B.Y.U.
Teacher-Training cla.s.s:
_The Significance of Individual Differences in Teaching_
"Individual instruction in our religious organizations as in the public schools is under present condition impracticable. We are compelled to teach in groups or cla.s.ses of somewhat varying size.
Consequently, it is of prime importance for the teacher, in trying to apply that fundamental principle of pedagogy--an understanding of the being to be taught--to know first what characteristics and tendencies, whether native or acquired, are known to a large majority of the children in the cla.s.s. Leaving out of consideration the possible presence of subnormal children, the language used must be clear and simple enough to be comprehended by all; the great majority of the questions must be intended for all to find answers to; the stories, ill.u.s.trations, incidents, pictures, and various devices employed must be reasonably within the range of experience and comprehension of all members.
"At the same time, it is important to recognize the fact that, after all, the cla.s.s as a whole does not in any very fundamental, pedagogical sense const.i.tute the objective unit of instruction.
Though it seems natural for most teachers to look upon the cla.s.s as a more or less uniform ma.s.s, and the exigencies of the situation make this to some extent unavoidable, still the individual child remains always the real unit, and furthermore the units are all different--in appearance, training and temperament.
"In general the methods and material will be uniform for all, but there will still be abundant opportunity for exercising little individual touches and tricks in relation to individual pupils, especially those who vary somewhat widely from the average. Even such a superficial matter as size, especially superior size, might profitably receive a little special consideration by the teacher and thus at times save some pupil a little physical embarra.s.sment. The boy unusually active might be given some physical task to perform, even if it has to be provided for the occasion, though it must not be too artificially created, as this is sure of detection.
"Questions requiring more than ordinary mental ability to answer may be directed to those of superior alertness and intelligence, who may also be given more difficult subjects to look up for presentation to the cla.s.s. Special interests in animals, flowers, books, aeroplanes, industries, vocations, should be discovered and utilized by the watchful teacher. Even though the connection may be a little remote, any contribution of real interest and value is legitimate in order to relieve the monotony of a dull cla.s.s.
"Pupils differ very widely in temperament and disposition as well as in capacity. The timid boy or girl should be given special encouragement and commendation, while the over-bold will take no injury from a mild "squelch" occasionally. The child of gloomy disposition should if anything have more smiles and sunny words sent his way than the cheerful one, who is in no danger of losing his share. The talkative child will need cautioning and careful directing, while the one who seldom speaks needs the frequent stimulus of a kind and encouraging look or word. The child who is naturally docile and obedient will develop smoothly and without great need of special attention and direction, while the stubborn, the rebellious, the untractable child, the cause of continual worry and solicitude, is the one on whom special thought must be bestowed; for his soul is no less precious in the sight of G.o.d, and the wise teacher may be the means of making him a useful citizen, as well as directing him in the way of working out his eternal salvation."
QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS--CHAPTER X
1. Discuss the relative significance of race, s.e.x, family, and environment as factors producing individual differences.
2. Why is it essential that teachers know the parents of pupils?
3. What are the advantages of having boys and girls together in cla.s.s?
What are the arguments for separating them?
4. How can a teacher be governed by the force of individual differences when he has to teach a group of forty pupils?
5. Discuss the statement that teaching is both a social and an individual process.
6. Choose a subject of general interest and ill.u.s.trate how it might be presented to satisfy different types of pupils.
HELPFUL REFERENCES
Those listed in Chapter VII.
CHAPTER XI
ATTENTION
OUTLINE--CHAPTER XI
Attention the mother of learning.--Gregory quoted.--The fact of attention in the Army.--What attention is.--Ill.u.s.trations.--Attention and interest.--The three types of attention: Involuntary, nonvoluntary, voluntary.--How to secure attention.--Interest the great key to attention.
In that stimulating little book, _The Seven Laws of Teaching_, by Gregory, _et al_, the second law is stated in these words:
"A _learner_ is one who _attends_ with interest to the lesson."
Expressed as a rule of teaching, the law is made to read:
"Gain and keep the attention and interest of the pupils upon the lesson. Do not try to teach without attention."
As a matter of fact, it is impossible to teach without attention. A person may hold cla.s.s--go through the formality of a cla.s.s exercise--but he can _really teach_ only him who _attends_. The first big, outstanding thought with reference to attention is that we should secure it, not so much in the interest of order, important as it is in that connection, but because it is the _sine qua non_ of _learning_.
A boy may sit in a cla.s.s in algebra for weeks, with his mind far afield on some pet scheme, or building palatial edifices in the air, but not until he _attends_ does he begin to grasp the problems presented. It is literally as well as scripturally possible "to have ears and hear not."
_Attention_ is the mother of learning.
Think of the force of that word _attention_ in the American Army. It is a delight to see the ranks straighten to that command--would that our messages of truth could challenge the same response from that vast army of seekers after truth--the boys and girls of the Church. The soldier at attention not only stands erect, nor does he merely keep silence--he is eagerly receptive--anxious to receive a message which he is to translate into action. His att.i.tude, perhaps, is our best answer to the question, "What is attention?" Betts says, "The concentration of the mind"s energy on one object of thought is attention."
As Magnusson expresses it, "Attention is the centering of consciousness on a portion of its contents." And Angell adds, "Attention is simply a name for the central and most active portion of the field of consciousness."
The mind, of course, during waking hours, is never merely pa.s.sive. With its flood of ideas it is always recalling, observing, comparing, a.n.a.lyzing, building toward conclusions. These processes go on inevitably--go on with little concern about attention. But when we narrow the field--when we bring our mental energy to a focus on something specific and particular we then _attend_.
Betts, in his _The Mind and Its Education_, very happily ill.u.s.trates the meaning of attention:
"_Attention Measures Mental Efficiency._--In a state of attention the mind may be likened to the rays of the sun which have been pa.s.sed through a burning gla.s.s. You may let all the rays which can pa.s.s through your window pane fall hour after hour upon the paper lying on your desk, and no marked effects follow. But let the same amount of sunlight be pa.s.sed through a lens and converged to a point the size of your pencil, and the paper will at once burst into flame."
To follow another a.n.a.logy, attention is to the energies of the mind what the pipe line leading into the power plant is to the water in the canyon above. It directs and concentrates for the generation of power. Just as the water might run on and on to little or no purpose, so the energies of a boy or girl may be permitted to drift aimlessly toward no conviction unless the teacher wins him to an attention that rivets truth to his life.
In a discussion of attention the question of the relation of interest to attention is bound to arise. Do we attend to things because they are interesting? Or are we interested in things because we give them our attention? The two terms are so interwoven in meaning that they are frequently treated under one chapter heading. Our purpose here is not to attempt to divorce them, but rather to give them emphasis because of their significance in the teaching process.
Attention denotes a focusing of mental energy on a particular idea or object; interest, subjectively considered, is an att.i.tude of mind.
Perhaps we can get a clearer idea of the two terms if we consider the various types of attention. First of all there is what is called _Involuntary_ attention. This is the type over which the mind has little or no control. A person sits reading--his attention fixed on the page in front of him--when suddenly a rock crashes through the window immediately behind him. He jumps to see what is wrong. His attention to his book is shifted to the window, not because he wills it so, but because of the suddenness and force of the stimulus. The excitation of the auditory nerve centers compels attention. The attendant feeling may be one of pleasure or of pain--there may be an interest developed or there may not. Involuntary attention clearly does not rest upon interest.
Then there is what is called _Nonvoluntary_ attention. I go to a theatre and some particular musical number is featured. It grips my interest and I follow it with rapt attention, wholly without conscious effort. Unlike the case of a sudden noise, in this experience my attention is not physiologically automatic--I could control it if I chose--but I choose now to give it. Interest clearly is the motor power behind such attention. Then, finally, there is _Voluntary_ attention. I sit at a table working out a problem in arithmetic. Outside there is being played a most exciting ball game. My interests are almost wholly centered in the outcome of the game, but duty bids me work out my problem. I make myself attend to it in spite of the pull of my natural interests.
And so attention is seen to be purely the result of physiological stimulus; it is seen to accompany--fairly to be born out of it--interest. It is seen to be the result of an operation of the will against the natural force of interest. This three-fold cla.s.sification is of particular significance to the teacher. He may be sure that if he resorts to the use of unusual stimuli he can arrest attention, though by so doing he has no guarantee of holding it; he may feel certain of attention if he can bring before pupils objects and ideas which to them are interesting; he may so win them to the purposes of his recitation that they will give attention even though they are not interested in what may be going on for the time being. It is evident, however, that resorting to violent stimuli is dangerous, that forced attention is ultimately disagreeable and certainly not a modern commonplace in experience, that attention which attends genuine interest is the attention most generally to be sought.
One question still remains: "How shall we proceed to secure and to hold attention?"
In the first place we should remind ourselves that it is a difficult matter to give sustained attention to a single object or idea, unless the object or idea changes. The difficulty is greater with children than with adults. In the second place we should be mindful that it is poor policy either to demand attention or to beg for it.