1: Psychology and the Teaching Art

In the first chapter of James’ “Talks to Teachers”, he offers insight on what teachers may expect from psychology in their professional pursuit.  He discussed the combination of psychology and teaching methodology and what each subject offered to the other.  James’ maintains that teaching methods must agree with psychology, however, pedagogical decisions should not be based solely on psychological science.  To support his assertion, James defines the educational uses of psychology and describes the teacher’s duty toward child-study. 

In Chapter 1, William James underplays the role of psychology in teaching almost to a point where one might start to believe the union of psychological science and teaching is impossible.  However, he uses this viewpoint to emphasize the relationship in an ideal union is created by a set of compromises, limits, and responsibilities where neither of the objects that form the union dictates the other.  Further, the end result, in this case an educated individual, occurs due to a common set of beliefs and ideals shared by both parties of the union.

James goes to great lengths to say, “Psychology is a science, and teaching is an art”(p.3).  Scientists perform experiments by following a set of established procedures. Emotion and sensation are not factors in the scientist’s work. However, artists such as sculptures and painters, rely on these factors to drive their creativity and enable them to produce works of art.  Given the human to human factor in education, it makes sense that the union of psychology and teaching is necessary.  

James uses an example for how teachers should relate to their students.  Metaphorically speaking he asserted that teaching was like war where the student was the “youthful organism who is our enemy” (p. 4). In his comparison he states, “you must simply work your pupil into such a state of interest in what you are going to teach him that every other object of attention is banished from his mind” (p. 4).  When I first read the ‘war’ metaphor, I was taken aback.  I teach teenagers.  If I were to treat them as a literal enemy, we would get nowhere.  Not only do I teach teenagers, I teach the lowest level of math one can take in high school.  My classroom is filled with students who come from broken homes, low socio-economical conditions, and in some cases do not even have parents that graduated from high school.  Instinctually they are combative due to having to fight their way through life for whatever reasons.  In no such way would I be able to banish objects of attention from their minds if I were to treat my position as one of war.  At the very least, I may be able to avoid the flying pencil or desk. 

However, given that his example was a metaphor, I can see James’ point, but I do not necessarily agree.  To get the best out of my students, I have to consider their psyche and present the instruction in such a way that appeases their mindset.   I strive to embrace their objects of attention and relate them to the content so that the information becomes attached to something relative to them.  Given the trials and tribulations these students face on a daily basis, in and out of the school setting, how can teachers afford not to use psychological science?

William helping me cook tacos