Pedagogical science/2. Methodical bases of educational process

Kulichenko A.K.

Classic Private University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine

W. H. Kilpatrick’s Reception of F. Froebel’s Pedagogical Considerations

Speaking about an American educator William Heard Kilpatrick (1871 – 1965), we are to remember that it is he who has extended the term ‘project’ for its use in pedagogics, at the same time creating a revolutionary for those times technology in teaching – project method. Certainly, W. Kilpatrick wasn’t a pioneer doing this. Such scholars as R. Stimson, R. Stevenson, D. Snedden, C. Woodhull were his predecessors in projects as a branch of knowledge. However, analysing an educational heritage of the past, W. Kilpatrick came to conclusion that it was utterly necessary to present a new general concept which would bring positive changes not only in education, but also in society. As for a theoretical basis of the concept, J. Pestalozzi’s, F. Froebel’s, H. Toro’s, R. Emerson’s, J. Dewey’s, E. Thorndike’s ideas were valuable and worthwhile for the concept creation.

W. Kilpatrick is united with F. Froebel, a German pedagogue, a Pestalozzi’s student, a theoretician of preschool education via a treatise ‘Froebel’s Kindergarten Principles. Critically Examined’ (1916), where he reviews his colleague’s practices.

On the very first pages of the book Kilpatrick points out that the ‘general aim of the work is to help spread the reform of kindergarten theory and practice in the USA’ [1, p. vi]. For this purpose he chooses F. Froebel’s work and, sometimes criticizing, sometimes supporting, tries to build a proper model for preschool education thereby training future kindergarten educators to develop a noteworthy person for a democratic society.

At once W. Kilpatrick is at a loss on the fundamental conception of God in Froebel’s educational system, especially ‘goal and explanation of education that is found in God and in the relationship that man and nature bear to God’ [1, p. 1].

The matter is that W. Kilpatrick has a life-formed philosophical outlook and he questions so-called ‘fundamental bases’ after having read Ch. Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ (1859). Besides, there is a difference between conventional and Froebel’s relationship ‘Creator – creation’: ‘to the ordinary common-sense Christian, God made the world originally and still rules it; but the creation exists, as it were, outside of God, and His rulership is rather after the analogy of a man over his contrivances or perhaps of a father over his children. To Froebel, on the contrary, the world and everything in it in some mysterious sense came out of God and still remains in him, just as the common-sense man conceives a thought to come out of the mind and yet be in it’ [1, p. 2].

Subsequently, W. Kilpatrick considers the next main Froebel’s educational doctrines [1, p. 16-17]:

- development as the universal law whereby the divine essence makes manifest and explicit what was from the first implicit;

- the similarity and parallelism of all instances of development wherever found;

- ‘correspondences' or the analogy everywhere subsisting between ‘spirit’ and body;

- the scheme of connections which run throughout the world as a result of the foregoing;

- the Gliedganzes or member-whole, that the whole works in each part;

- the law of opposites as the method by which the development everywhere takes place.

As for a role of a teacher, W. Kilpatrick agrees with F. Froebel that ‘the business of the teacher is to supply the conditions demanded by the innate plan and to ward off any influence which might hinder its unfolding’ [1, p. 83]. Moreover, American educator supports his German colleague idea about early childhood work [2, p. 87], because a child is imparted to work for an amusement and finally for a result or an activity product [2, p. 99]. In addition, W. Kilpatrick is an adherent of fruitful work while learning and teaching. All in all, if a child is responsible for many things (especially for animals and plants, out-of-doors nature that are an important part of school [1, p. 187]), he can stand up for his life and develop quicker [2, p. 112].

On the other side, W. Kilpatrick reproaches Froebel’s writings for excessive religiousness and many mistakes; ‘Froebel’s writings are so filled with symbolism and other mistaken psychology, we conclude that the wise training teacher will no longer use them as textbooks. Froebel’s name will properly be honored, and his memory will be revered; but only carefully selected passages from his books can be assigned, and this rather for the older students’ [1, p. 200-201]. At the same time, there is a contradictory statement from Kilpatrick’s side: ‘Froebel made an institution which could be multiplied at will, and still show the same joyous activity on the part of the children, and the same tender care on the part of the kindergartener. The spirit of the kindergarten is immeasurably superior’ [1, p. 207].

Though, perhaps, the most powerful postulate about the fact that ‘the child has a natural inclination to social intercourse, and can reach his destiny only in and through social relations. The kindergarten and school must take these all into account and consciously give opportunity for growth in sociality through real participation in social life’ [1, p. 204] runs as a golden thread through Kilpatrick’s entire educational activity and concepts. And description of a group activity –‘how happy a group of children can be when engaged in educative activity’ [1, p. 205] – is an archetype in project method as a pedagogical technology.

In conclusion, then, we may say that there is an ambiguous W. H. Kilpatrick’s reception on the subject of F. Froebel’s pedagogical considerations. However, it didn’t prevent him from building a general concept – project method using and adopting not only his outstanding contemporaries’ best results, but also world forerunners’ educational experience. It is possible that W. Kilpatrick as well as F. Froebel has been not always right in some question, still his works have endured their revivals and now are utilized for humanity good.

References:

1. Kilpatrick W. H. Froebel’s Kindergarten Principles. Critically Examined / W. H. Kilpatrick. – New York : The Macmillan Company, 1916.– 217 p.

2. Froebel F. The Education of Man / F. Froebel . – New York : D. Appleton & Company, 1901.– 340 p.