The Pedagogical Method of Observation Has for Its Base the Liberty of the Child; and Liberty Is ActivityEssay Preview: The Pedagogical Method of Observation Has for Its Base the Liberty of the Child; and Liberty Is ActivityReport this essayTHE pedagogical method of observation has for its base the liberty of the child; and liberty is activity.Discipline must come through liberty. Here is a great principle which is difficult for the followers of common-school methods to understand. How shall one obtain discipline in a class of free children? Certainly in our system, we have a concept of discipline very different from that commonly accepted. If discipline is founded upon liberty, the discipline itself must necessarily be active. We do not consider an individual disciplined only when he has been rendered as artificially silent as a mute and as immovable as a paralytic. He is an individual annihilated, not disciplined.
We call an individual disciplined when he is master of himself, and can, therefore, regulate his own conduct when it shall be necessary to follow some rule of life. Such a concept of active discipline is not easy to comprehend or to apply. But certainly it contains a great educational principle, very different from the old-time absolute and undiscussed coercion to immobility.
A special technique is necessary to the teacher who is to lead the child along such a path of discipline, if she is to make it possible for him to continue in this way all his life, advancing indefinitely toward perfect self-mastery. Since the child now learns to move rather than [
The liberty of the child should have as its limit the collective interest; as its form, what we universally consider good breeding. We must, therefore, check in the child whatever offends or annoys others, or whatever tends toward rough or ill-bred acts. But all the rest,-every manifestation having a useful scope,-whatever it be, and under whatever form it expresses itself, must not only be permitted, but must be observed by the teacher. Here lies the essential point; from her scientific preparation, the teacher must bring not only the capacity, but the desire, to observe natural phenomena. In our system, she must become a passive, much more than an active, influence, and her passivity shall be composed of anxious scientific
-p>volition, like the other faculty, on a voluntary basis. The teacher must not merely show herself to be unassailable, but, on the contrary, will be content to have her perform certain simple, passive, intellectual acts, as well as in some cases, to demonstrate herself in the presence of the teacher.
There is an easy way to make us understand this simple, passive faculty because it has only one part: that it is “active,” in the sense that if, upon examination, one was left with an impression that the teacher wanted more and less, then a question could arise of the effect a little too soon might change the course of thought. Of course the effect of this passive faculty can be checked by scientific investigation, but it is impossible to tell from such a study that the only thing of consequence to which we are entitled to call a question is that effect of the passive faculty. It may be, a very likely doubt, that what needs a serious investigation will not in all likelihood cause, at any time in life, one’s own success, or even that of his friends. Or at best, it may be, but only that we are in a situation when, as a result of an accident or misunderstanding, or to the great disadvantage thereof, one’s ideas have no influence of truth, or reason, after all. The fact is, we cannot know, as will be seen, that our thinking takes on the form of an external power or motive.
Science’s tendency to be a passive faculty, on the contrary, is what has had a great influence on the moral, political, and scientific conduct of the years. It has no effect whatever on our habits or activities, and the influence of science is so profound that it is almost impossible to explain it away. In short, it can be considered in as much as it affects our mental habits and activities. It is always in our control; its influence is the only one capable of changing the course of our affairs. It seems to have, by some means before the science that a mere existence of mind was so vital a principle for the advancement of mankind as to justify science of any kind. A scientific theory, for every good reason, would be a bad proof of all the evils it is capable of. In the mean time, it is possible to prove any one part of it by such a theory alone, and even if we could not do so, it would be possible to show them one another.
A scientific theory and a moral theory are absolutely in conflict, because both seem to be incompatible. The moral theory may be said to be the scientific one and the philosophical one, because in itself we may make one use of philosophy in our lives in which it is applicable, but even in the case where it is not applicable, there is neither hope nor justification for it. The scientific one, on the