The Valentine Democrat. [volume] (Valentine, Cherry Co., Neb.) 1896-1898, 1896-05-21
COMPARISON or THE THE
DRIES or FROEBEL AND
HERBART.

General Teachers Association held at Valentine
| May 2. 1896, by C. V. Thorn.l
Pestalozzi, Froebel and Herbart, the
three central figures in modern eenca-
ton, lived in the same time, in the
latter part of the 18th century and
early part of the 18th. Pestalozzi is
the senior of Froebel by thirty years
and of Herbart by thirty-six years.
All three still live in the reforms in
augurated in pedagogy. All three i'm
proved education, but in different
ways. While Herbart improved edu-
cation as he found it, Froebel and
Pestalozzi revolutionized it. Herbart
lives in books on psychology and peda-
gogy; PestoloZzi and Froebel, his pu-
pills, fellow-laborers and successors,
live in the kindergarten of today
Herbart is famous for having tmproF-
ed upon the methods OF his predeces-
sors. Froebol and PestaloZzi created a
newsystem.
Herbart patched an old garment.
PestaloZzi and Froebel deemed the old
garment not worthy a patch and made
a new one. However much Herbart
and Froebel may differ in theory, in
one thing they ~agree-that the chief
end of education is the development
of moral character. But a common
aim does not argue a common great
ness. The common aim of humanity
is to gain an eternal home. Yet this
common aim does not make correct or
equally safe all the thousand creeds by
which mtn claim to merit a haven of
rest.
a thousand paths may lead to the
same enchanted lake; but many of
these may be impossible, many may
be long and circuitous. some danger
Gus. The character of the lake speaks
nothing as to the paths leading to it.
Aside from this agreement in the pur-
pose or end OF education, Herbart and
Froebel believed no more in common
than does a Chinaman and Partisan on
the subject of style.
While both recognized the supreme
Importance of the child's interest ia
what he is learning as a factor in edu-
cation, and while they both attained
this requisite. each aroused a differ
ent kind OF interest in a different way.
Herbart, by devices and artificial
means innumerable, made study inter
esting to the child. But Froebel
argued that the child was not truly
interested in knowledge until he
found a use for it. Says Froebel, a
child finds more interest in using
knowledge than in receiving it.
1t is tersely said "Herbart's child
learns go see how to do Froebel,s
child sees and does all along the
line" The difference in the theories
of Herbart and Froebel are condensed
in these two statements:
Herbart had often to compel inter
est while Froebel created and sustain
ed a natural, or healthy interest or at
tention by keeping the child busy.
His pupil not only received knowledge
but acted it. His knowledge was
"found out" by himself, he himself
being occupied. The knowledge of
Herbart's pupil was "told to him." and
he had nothing to do but to receive it.
He sat u~noccupied, his master being
employed. Herbart's child read books,
interesting books, about insects.
Froebel's child romped the fields,
found the insect and read nature. One
was interested and busy; the other
was interested and unoccupied. Her.
bart impaired knowledge (genelally in
an interesting manner}. Froebel
guided the child in finding out for
himself. Herbart's child knew but
little aside from what had been told
him in books or by teacher. FroebeFs
child found out for himself his knowl-
edge. Herbart studied the child to
mould it. Froebel studied the child to
guide it. Herbart's teacher moulded,
that is shaped, the child. Froebel's
teacher guided the child in moulding
himself. One magnifed the work of
the teacher, the other the work of The
child.
Froebel, when a small lad at school,
came to the conclusion that there was
something radically wrong in his
teachers methods of instruction. He
could not think it right that learning
should come to the youths tender
mind, thro' trials, hardships and weary
minG -plOdding-taSkS that would over