The Forms of Instruction

 

        The Forms of Instruction are the various ways in which we may develop knowledge. The principal Forms of Instruction are the Analytic and Synthetic, the Concrete and Abstract, the Inductive and Deductive, the Theoretical and Practical. We will define and illustrate each one of these forms.

          Analytic and Synthetic. Analytic Instruction is that form of teaching which proceeds from wholes to parts. Thus, if I take a watch and separate it into its parts, and teach the name and function of each part as I take it to pieces, the process is analytic. So in grammar, if I begin with the sentence and separate it into its parts, I am using the analytic process. If in geography we begin with the globe as a whole, and separate it into land and water, and come down from continents and  oceans to the smaller divisions, the process is analytic.

        Synthetic Instruction is that form of instruction which proceeds from parts to wholes. Thus, if we take the parts of a  watch as separated, and putting them together, teach the name and use of each part, we are teaching synthetically. If in grammar we begin with the words as parts of speech, and put them together to form sentences, we are teaching by the synthetic method. So if we begin with the geography of the school grounds, go out to that of the township, the county, and the state, and thus at last cover the entire surface of the  earth, the method is synthetic.

          Concrete and Abstract. Concrete Instruction is that form of teaching which employs objects and illustrations. Thus, object lessons, or the use of pictures and diagrams, are examples of concrete instruction. In arithmetic, the teaching of the fundamental operations by means of the numeral frame, of fractions by means of illustrations, of denominate numbers by means of the actual measures, of banking by establishing a bank in the school, are examples of concrete instruction. Grammar taught from language, rather than  from the rules of the textbook, is also concrete teaching.

        Abstract Instruction is that form of teaching which does not employ objects and illustrations. In arithmetic, counting, addition, etc., taught without any objects or illustrations, denominate numbers by merely repeating the tables, percentage by the definitions and rules without illustrating the actual business transactions, etc., are examples of abstract instruction. Grammar taught from the definitions of the textbooks, instead of from language in which we find the principles embodied, is abstract instruction. Teaching Geography from the book, rather than from natural objects, is an  example of abstract instruction.

          Inductive and Deductive. Inductive Instruction is that  form of teaching which proceeds from particulars to generals. The leading of pupils by appropriate questions and examples to the apprehension of an idea or principle before it is stated, is a process of inductive teaching. Thus, in arithmetic, if by presenting particular examples we lead the pupil to see the principle or rule before stating it, we teach inductively. If in Geometry, by appropriate examples, we lead the pupil to a geometrical idea or principle, and then require him to express it, we are teaching inductively. In Grammar, teaching inductively, we would lead a pupil to the idea of a part of speech before we named and defined it; or lead him, as we often can, to the name of a part of speech, without his learning it from a book or the teacher.

        Deductive Instruction is that form of teaching which proceeds from generals to particulars. If we first state the general principle and then lead to the particular applications of it, we are teaching deductively. Thus, in arithmetic, we may teach the pupil the principles of fractions, and then have him apply them; or in Grammar we may teach the words of a definition, and then illustrate its meaning: in both cases we are teaching deductively. Deriving ideas from definitions, methods from principles, particular methods from general laws, are all deductive methods of procedure.

        The Inductive and Deductive methods may be distinguished even in stating definitions. Definitions may be stated either in an inductive or a deductive form. If we begin with the term to be defined and pass to its explanation, the form is deductive; but if we begin by giving the idea, and end by naming the term, the form is inductive. Thus "Addition is the process of finding the sum of two or more numbers," is in the deductive form; and " The process of finding the sum of two or more numbers is called addition," is in the inductive form of stating a definition.

          Theoretical and Practical. Theoretical Instruction is that form of teaching which deals principally with the laws and principles of a subject. Teaching the theory of arithmetic without making an application of it to practical problems, is an example of theoretical teaching. The so‑called practical problem of arithmetic, are sometimes purely theoretical, never occurring in actual life. Teaching the definitions and principles of grammar without applying them -a fault not uncommon- is also an illustration of theoretical instruction. The teaching of geometry without any application of its principles to practical problems -a fault if done in early stages of teaching Geometry- is also an example of theoretical instruction.

        Practical Instruction is that form of teaching which deals principally with the application of the laws and principles of a subject. When pupils are required to apply the principles of arithmetic to actual problems, and the students of grammar are taught to use the principles of language in their own speech and writing, we have an illustration of practical teaching. To open a mock shop in the schoolroom and show by actual transactions what the business problems of arithmetic mean, is practical instruction. The application of the principles of geometry to actual problems that may occur to a business man, and also to surveying and engineering, furnishes an example of practical instruction.

        However, overemphasis on practical instruction shortens the range of instruction. To insist on "Learning by doing, by problem solving, by experimenting, by researching, etc." has been one of the greatest curses of American progressive education. To insist that "if knowledge is to be significant, we must be able to do something with it" is to deny the value of theoretical instruction.

        Man's knowledge has two levels: perceptual and conceptual. The perceptual level is concerned only with concretes. Perceptual data are self-evident and require no special order, no logic, argument, proof: we see what we see. What makes us human is the conceptual level, on which we exercise our capacity to abstract, to classify, to organize our perceptual field. The conceptual level is based on the perceptual, but there are profound differences between the two. In the beginning stages of education, the cultivation of perception is important. Also, since the depth of conception in early stages of education is very shallow, very close to surface, since learning material consists mostly of perceptual data, learning by doing, seeing, touching is the primary method of teaching. But on the conceptual level, we do need proof. We need a method of validating our ideas; we need a guide to let us know what conclusions follow from what data. And, full functioning of conceptual level -to make connections, to generalize, to see the wider issues and principles involved in any topic- can be attained only after many years of education.

        Therefore, learning should not remain indefinitely at the level of "doing"; "doing" is a means by which the child is led from practical issues to theoretical principles, from the concrete and sensory to the abstract and intellectual.

        To teach biology mainly by dissecting or observing under microscope limits a child's reach of biology within a few animals or plants, and only at the level of perceptual data.

        The other extreme is also prevalent today: asking grade schoolers to conduct research on political, social, and environmental issues. This is one of the most perverse aberrations of today's education. It is to take conceptual‑level material and present it to the students as if it were at the perceptual-level. The effect of such a method would be to disintegrate the child's mind, to cripple his capacity of distinguishing between the states of his consciousness and external reality, to maroon him in a no‑man's‑land of cognition, to destroy his motivation to learn.

          Application. Several of these forms may be used in teaching the same subject; and sometimes one form is preferable and sometimes another. The concrete and inductive forms should be used with children; the abstract and deductive forms are more suitable to older pupils. Analysis and synthesis are often employed in teaching the same subject; though as a rule, the analytic form should precede the synthetic. Early instruction should be practical, though at certain stages the abstract element may predominate.