Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-11-16

der, delicate figure Of the reader lily COM
| ported with the immense girth and mas
sive weight of Jolly Jack. Hoods lines
| to his son were fairly but not finely rem
| dered and next followed from Dickens,
Capt. Cuttie's consolatory remarks to
little Florence, when both supposed that
poor Walter was "drownded." The read
| ing was effective and the reader was ap
| plaudeG. i number of Irish anecdotes,
most Of them old and familiar, were we'll
told, the speaker having ''rich Irisl,
| brosuc.' which he made good use of.
also, in reading Paddy O'Rafter." Sam
Welicrs description Of ''Wcal Pies" and
his appearance As Il witness in
the case of Bardell VS.. Pickwick, We're
we'll deiineated and provoked much laugh
ter. Bret Harte's Jim could hardly have
been more faithfully rendered. and . Hans
Breitman's Barty" could hardly have
been worse, the reader having neither the
face, form, gesture CT accent Of the jolly
German beer drinker and waltzer, while
his Interpretation Of part of tho poem was
unnatural and fell far short Of doing JUS
tice to the author. The reading fell flat
upon the audience. The humorous descrip-
ton Of visit to Niagara Falls was much
| reiished, and Collins ode to cheerfulness
was given with proper spirit, graceful no
tion and glowing countenance. The lee
turer advised his hearers to give more at
tention to wit and humor, and less to the
consuming cares of business and money
making Mr. MacCully as an clocutionist
exhibited very considerable ability, and
his effort was duly appreciated by his au
dience.
Wednesday, Morning. vocal music
by the Institute, there were devotional
services led by W. c. Robinson of the
Duke Street Methodist church, who read a
part of the 10th chapter Of Lake and offer
ed prayer, and then Coronation was
we'll sung by the Institute.
Criticism In Class.
Mir. Weidenhammer, of Washington
borough, opened the discussion on "Crit-
icism in class" He thought the matter
was generally too much neglected. The
first object of criticism should be to cor
rect mistakes ard the second TO give in
StructiOn. If there are no mistakes on the
part of the pupils, there is no necessity for
criticism. In some cases the criticism is
greatly abused-especially where the
pupils criticise each other. Unjust criti-
cism is worse than no criticism. This is
especially so in reading classes, where
each pupil finds or thinks he finds some-
thing to criticise in the reader.
Mr.. Fickes, OF StrasburS, said that crit
icism for the mere sake of criticism is use
less but every scholar should have the
privilege of criticising his fellow the
criticism should be short, sharp and de-
cisive. There is no danger of hard feel
ings being engendered by fair criticism.
The American boy and girl are above such
narrowncss. All that is necessary is that
the teacher should give proper direction to
the criticism. 1t is not merely tho mistakes
made by pupils in their recitations that
should be criticised, but their manner Of
sitting, standing, holding the book, &c.
Mr.. keylor, of Mannheim borough,
agreed with most that had been said by
the former speakers, but he objected to
the practice prevailing i'll many schools OF
allowing the pupils to raise their hands
while one of the number is recitins. 1t
has tendency to embarrass and confuse
the pupil. He also objected to the writ
ing of mistakes on the blackboard, as the
pupil is as apt to accept the error "a the
correction.
Mr.. Conner favored judicious criticism,
but SO frequently found it to be injutlicious
that on the whole it is apt to be worth
less.
Mr. Armstrong, Of Manor, thought
criticism very important part of the
teachers work. It is 4 grand error to
allow mistakes Of pupils to pass unnc-
ticed. Their correction is 4 strong inceu-
tive to a thorough study of their lessons.
They should know that every mistake
they make will be exposed.
Mrs. Mayne Archer said she thought
one Of the best methods is for the teacher to
read the lesson and then endeavOr to have
the pupil read it the same way.
G. A. Weaver, Of Leacock, did not think
it necessary to criticize every triiling mis-
take made in reading so long rs the sense
of the piece read was properly given.
Language lessons and other studies de
serve as much criticism as reading les
sons.
F. NJ. Murphy thought the criticism
should be mace by the teacher rather
than the pupils. n good deal of the
childish criticism does more harm than
good and should be curbed and kept
strictly within proper bounds.
Chas. Il. Keller agreed generally with
the remarks of Mr.. Murphy.
c. V. Lichty believed VIC should give
the pupils an opportunity to think for
themselves and give expression to their
thought. He favored 4 very fair criticism
among scholars. The proper time for it
should be left to the judgment OF the
teacher.
Prof. Buerhle thought it we'll to inquire
how many teachers here use class criti-
cism. He asked those who did to raise
their hands. almost every hand was
raisedl. How many have observed bad
Objects arising therefrom? [Six or eight
teachers raised their hands. The dispro
portion being very large, Prof. Buerhle
asked whether it was not probable the
error was with the teacher rather than
with the criticism. He said that he agreed
with those who objected to the raising Of
the hands in class during recitation, or
by other means disconcerting the pupil
recitins. He thought the practice of
having the pupils write out CON-
positions and then exchange them
for criticism or correction, one Of the best
means of governing instr uction in gram
mar. Criticism need not necessarily be
confined to making corrections or pointing
out errors and defects favorable criticism
should be made where it is deserved. The
teacher should read for tho instruction of
the class but should not read all the
lessons and thus make mere parrots of the
pupils. While he favored class criticism
he would hold the teacher responsible for
its abuse. 1t is important that false or in
correct criticism should not be allowed to
90 unchallenTed The teachers ewes and