Il en est question dans l'article "Calcul intuitif" du

*Dictionnaire de pédagogie*et d'instruction primaire (éd. 1887).Ferdinand Buisson : Sous ce nom, qu’il faut bien accepter à défaut de mieux, les Suisses et les Belges désignent un mode d’enseignement des premiers éléments du calcul qu’ils ont emprunté à l’Allemagne et qui est aujourd’hui très répandu non seulement dans tous les pays allemands, mais aussi en Russie, en Hollande, en Suède, aux Etats-Unis. On connaît aussi ce mode d’enseignement sous le nom de méthode Grube.

C’est en 1812 que M. Grube publia à Berlin la première édition de son Leitfaden für das Rechnen in der Elementarschule nach den Grundsätzen einer heuristique Méthode (Guide pour le calcul dans les classes élémentaires, d’après les principes d’une méthode heuristique.) Cet « Essai d’instruction éducative », comme il l’appelait, après avoir provoqué d’assez vives discussions, obtint les suffrages d’une grande partie du corps enseignant ; le traité de Grube, retouché pour être mis en accord avec le nouveau système des poids et mesures, est arrivé en 1873 à sa 5è édition ; et de nombreux livres scolaires en toutes langues ont reproduit, imité ou appliqué la méthode Grube.

Dégagée des considérations psychologiques qui l’ont inspirée, cette méthode consiste à faire faire aux enfants, d’eux-mêmes et par intuition, les opérations essentielles du calcul élémentaire ; elle a pour but de leur faire connaître les nombres : connaître un objet, ce n’est pas seulement savoir son nom, c’est l’avoir vu sous toutes ses formes, dans tous ses états, dans ses diverses relations avec les autres objets ; c’est pouvoir le comparer avec d’autres, le suivre dans ses transformations, le saisir et le mesurer, le composer et le décomposer à volonté.

Traitant donc les nombres comme un objet quelconque qu’il s’agirait de rendre familier à l’intelligence de l’enfant, Grube s’élève contre l’antique usage d’apprendre successivement aux élèves d’abord l’addition, puis la soustraction, puis les deux autres règles. Il divise le cours élémentaire tout autrement : 1ère année : étude des nombres de 1 à 10 ; 2è année : étude des nombres de 10 à 100 ; 3è année : de 100 à 1000 et au-dessus ; 4è année : fractions. Ce n’est qu’après cette préparation que l’élève rentre dans la voie ordinaire et étudie l’arithmétique comme tout le monde, mais avec cet avantage sur ses condisciples qu’il a l’habitude de compter de tête, qu’il n’est pas esclave de ses chiffres et de son crayon, qu’il voit d’un coup d’œil le sens et la nature d’un problème, et qu’il opère enfin sur les nombres les plus considérables, comme on le fait dans la vie usuelle pour les nombres les plus restreints

La référence à Grube est central dans le débat Brisssiaud/Delord/GRIP et alii sur l'enseignement du calcul à l'école élémentaire.

Le débat est beaucoup moins médiatisé que celui sur l'apprentissage de la lecture, mais tout aussi passionnant et crucial pour l'avenir des nations.

Pour en débattre, un des sujets sur Néo par exemple : http://www.neoprofs.org/t86947-calcul-au-primaire-buisson-methode-intuitive-par-michel-delord

Deux manuels seulement à ma connaissance sont édités actuellement, trois avec le

*Boscher*(puisqu'il contient une partie calcul pour les 60 premiers nombres) qui correspondent à cette méthode Grube :
A ma connaissance, aucune expérimentation n'a été faite à ce jour pour tester l'efficacité de ces méthodes de calcul intuitif par rapport aux autres, puisqu'aucune expérimentation tout court n'a été faite concernant les méthodes de maths au CP en France.

Grube's method of teaching arithmetic explained with a large number of practical hints and illustrations ([c1878])

Grube's method of teaching arithmetic : explained and illustrated, also the improvements upon the method made by the followers of Grube in Germany (1891)

Saul Badanes,

*The Falsity Of The Grube Method Of Teaching Primary Arithmetic*(1895)

**Hunter**:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/409790-new-franklin-arithmeticnumber-recognition-for-older-students/

I found a new to me vintage arithmetic series, with answer key.

New Franklin Arithmetic Book 1

New Franklin Arithmetic Arithmetic Book 2

Answer Key Book 1 and 2

Unfortunately the key doesn't start until page 91 of book 2, as is so typical of these older keys. They feel that a key is unnecessary for the easy problems

What I like about this series, is that Book One is a review of primary number recognition as well as introducing more difficult problems at the same time. The first page starts by introducing recognition of the numbers 1 and 2, but then adds in fractions by the second page. If anyone had been reading vintage or Waldorf teacher's manuals, and has been wanting to introduce number recognition to an older student, you might like this series.

There is a Franklin Primary book, but unfortunately it does not have an answer key. I wonder if I have the patience to create one. It's only 50 lessons and it would help me become more familiar with the Grube Method.

I've purposely been doing most of the Climbing to Good English lessons myself as the teacher's manual instructs.

Maybe lack of TMs for the vintage books isn't a problem, if I really want to become proficient at teaching from any of them.

**Poke Salad Annie :**

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/409801-grubes-method-of-teaching-arithmetic-why-havent-i-heard-of-this/

I have been reading your posts about math, and this one caught my curiosity. I just looked over much of the

*Grube's Method*book, and it seems

**very**similar to MEP. This text appears to be great for extra reinforcement for the MEP lessons. I wonder if some of MEP is drawn from this, as it is a Hungarian program. Anyway, I thought it was very interesting how the two seemed so eerily similar.

**Zoo keeper :**

Interesting book...kind of reminds me of the Graded Work in Arithmetic series, by S. W. Baird. Baird is more concise; Grube has more explicit notes to teachers (Baird has NO notes to teachers).

First Year (covers numbers 1-20)

Second Year (to 100)

Third Year (to 1000)

I agree with Annie, many similarities to MEP...

Rand McNally Primary Aithmetic seems to be based on Grube's

http://books.google....primary&f=false

Since this thread Simply Charlotte Mason has put out a good pdf on teaching math vintage style

http://www.entwicklu...lfe3.de/?id=786

Waldorf math is based in Grube's. Here is a link to the free African math pdfs.

http://www.entwicklu...lfe3.de/?id=786

Manual of Methods has a section on teaching math.

http://archive.org/d...ualof00cincrich

I'm adding Lippincott's Practical Primary Arithmetic to the Grube's list.

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

If you're interested in old reads, I adore Sir Richard Livingstone's A Defence of Classical Education

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/409801-grubes-method-of-teaching-arithmetic-why-havent-i-heard-of-this/

Oh, you. As if we needed more choices.

With these methods, at what age do they start?

I was looking at Ella Frances Lynch's advice (which has some similarities to Grube's), and she recommends holding off on teaching arithmetic until the child starts asking a lot of questions about numbers. In her experience, this is usually after age 6, and sometimes as late as 8 or 9.

I'm not sure if it would be feasible for most little ones to learn all four operations at once. Since the schools now seem to be doing quite a bit of arithmetic by 1st grade, that might be a reason most modern books start with addition and subtraction.

### #13

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:15 PM

I seriously am considering adding the Strayer Upton or Baird text as my kids warmup each day. The multiple operations and numbers manipulation is so helpful, and I like how it ties in with their main math (Rightstart, until we jump over to Saxon). Being able to comfortably mentally manipulate numbers in that fashion is what so many students are weak in and handicaps them in higher grades, not to mention the sad adults who can't tell you correct change if you give them something they didn't punch into the register (I was one of those until I worked a job that required I calculate change when the drawer was busy ).

### #14

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:15 PM

Which text would be better for a warmup for my kids without overdoing it? Any thoughts from the experts?

### #15

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:41 PM

Waldorf, using the Grube's method, teaches the 4 operations to first graders, but that is to SEVEN year olds. The Manual of Methods first year, which I'm assuming is aimed at 6 year olds, says NOT to teach all 4 processes, that first year. Strayer-Upton Book One is THIRD grade, even though it is for the first year of formal instruction. I'm not sure if any of that is helpful.

### #16

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:47 PM

Thanks, Hunter. It looks as if the Lippincott books did start teaching all four operations in the first half of first grade. That was in 1915, so I think they would have been six year olds. I wonder how that worked out in practice.

I've just been skimming all this so far, but here are two of a series of critical articles by E. E. White. The author has philosophical concerns about the way the processes are taught, but also believes (from personal observation) that it's too confusing for most children in the first year.

The Grube Method II

The Grube Method, Again

Then there's an even more critical book by Saul Badanes, who disagrees with both Grube and White.

The Falsity of the Grube Method of Teaching Arithmetic

Fun times!

- Hunter likes this

### #18

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:56 PM

Eliza, I saw those anti-Grube essays and flipped through one (the Badanes one). His criticisms sounded to my ears like how we got New Math from the old arithmetic mode. Noooo thanks!

### #19

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:03 PM

So as I'm mulling the progession with the seven year old beginning Rightstart C next year and my five-almost-sixer halfway through B, I'm seriously considering adding Strayer as a C/D supplement, which would be developmentally about right for 3rd grade and my seven year old is quite accelerated on her mathy abilities. My second kiddo is not so much, so a few more years might help her.

But my son, when he begins formal math (6-7 years old with Righstart A, I think, unless he magically shows more readiness sooner) I am less sure of how to progress or tweak. Would the numbers manipulation a of SU or Baird be too much for him to add in along fives and tens manipulation with RightStart? I really don't want to overload him, but I also see the value of developing a concrete physical awareness of all four operations at once. And there is literally nothing in math education my husband and I believe is more crucial than knowing arithmetic inside and out. But actually tweaking and cleaning up our curse of study so it is effective, not wasting any time, and simple, is where I'm struggling and willing to take suggestions.

I have plenty of kids to experiment on in the coming years, so any ideas would be much appreciated

But my son, when he begins formal math (6-7 years old with Righstart A, I think, unless he magically shows more readiness sooner) I am less sure of how to progress or tweak. Would the numbers manipulation a of SU or Baird be too much for him to add in along fives and tens manipulation with RightStart? I really don't want to overload him, but I also see the value of developing a concrete physical awareness of all four operations at once. And there is literally nothing in math education my husband and I believe is more crucial than knowing arithmetic inside and out. But actually tweaking and cleaning up our curse of study so it is effective, not wasting any time, and simple, is where I'm struggling and willing to take suggestions.

I have plenty of kids to experiment on in the coming years, so any ideas would be much appreciated

### #20

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:13 PM

Hunter, the SCM pdf link you posted in post #8 goes to some weird site. I wonder if the pdf is gone.

### #21

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:21 PM

ElizaG, thanks for those links!

My ability to pick through the meat and leave behind the frosting and commercialism of modern Montessori, Waldorf and CM comes from reading the sources that they read before developing their own educational philosophies.

Vintage used smaller books, readily available manipulatives, paper/slates instead of workbooks, and assumed students would spend fewer hours on task. Even when vintage sources disagree, I still find helpful tips in all of them, on how to get this done more efficiently.

My ability to pick through the meat and leave behind the frosting and commercialism of modern Montessori, Waldorf and CM comes from reading the sources that they read before developing their own educational philosophies.

Vintage used smaller books, readily available manipulatives, paper/slates instead of workbooks, and assumed students would spend fewer hours on task. Even when vintage sources disagree, I still find helpful tips in all of them, on how to get this done more efficiently.

- dauphin likes this

### #22

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:30 PM

Frank Hall arithmetic books are similar I think.

Here's the primer https://archive.org/...rimer00hallrich

This thread reminds me of everything I liked about MEP.

Here's the primer https://archive.org/...rimer00hallrich

This thread reminds me of everything I liked about MEP.

- Hunter likes this

### #23

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:07 PM

Frank Hall arithmetic books are similar I think.

Here's the primer https://archive.org/...rimer00hallrich

This thread reminds me of everything I liked about MEP.

I don't think I have seen this one. Thanks!

### #24

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:19 PM

The primer's insistence on no counting is great and surprising, all at once. That was clearly a very strong train of thought in that generation's pedogogy experience, which just makes me marvel all the more at how it was lost for decades. I'm enjoying reading through that one, thanks for sharing!

- Hunter and Courtney_Ostaff like this

### #25

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:04 AM

Ok because of this thread I was looking at Grube's and Strayer-Upton, etc. And now I have a question.

Looking at Ray's and SU, I was thinking my son would like the oral work, then I thought it would make a good way to add review to Singapore (something everyone has to come up with their own plan for). Since SU book 1 is for 3/4 grades, that's perfect for my oldest. Then I thought what about my daughter? There is no SU 1/2, so I looked more closely at the Franklin, Baird, and Grube's books. I like the way they introduce numbers one by one, in fact that is what drew me to MEP. Year 1 is like that, 1-20. I had been thinking of finishing MEP 1 with my daughter, or using Singapore 1 but some how incorporating parts of MEP 1. But one of these old books might be perfect for this, since it's all oral from one small book it would be easier to add in than weeding through a whole year of MEP.

For those of you who've actually used one of these books, or read them more thoroughly than I, which one is the most open and go? I don't want to have to spend too much time learning how to teach it.

Frank Hall looks like you have to figure out lessons yourself.

Baird includes all four operations from the first. But it has no notes to teachers, so I'm thinking it might be harder to use.

Franklins, I like the look of this one and it seems simple to teach. It focuses more on addition and subtraction at first. It teaches with story problems.

Grube's, more instruction for the teacher which is good. Does all four operations together. Teaching starts with 'the pure number' and there are tables to teach, I assume with counters.

Overall, I'm leaning towards franklin's as the easiest for me to use. Has anyone used it? Is it good?

Looking at Ray's and SU, I was thinking my son would like the oral work, then I thought it would make a good way to add review to Singapore (something everyone has to come up with their own plan for). Since SU book 1 is for 3/4 grades, that's perfect for my oldest. Then I thought what about my daughter? There is no SU 1/2, so I looked more closely at the Franklin, Baird, and Grube's books. I like the way they introduce numbers one by one, in fact that is what drew me to MEP. Year 1 is like that, 1-20. I had been thinking of finishing MEP 1 with my daughter, or using Singapore 1 but some how incorporating parts of MEP 1. But one of these old books might be perfect for this, since it's all oral from one small book it would be easier to add in than weeding through a whole year of MEP.

For those of you who've actually used one of these books, or read them more thoroughly than I, which one is the most open and go? I don't want to have to spend too much time learning how to teach it.

Frank Hall looks like you have to figure out lessons yourself.

Baird includes all four operations from the first. But it has no notes to teachers, so I'm thinking it might be harder to use.

Franklins, I like the look of this one and it seems simple to teach. It focuses more on addition and subtraction at first. It teaches with story problems.

Grube's, more instruction for the teacher which is good. Does all four operations together. Teaching starts with 'the pure number' and there are tables to teach, I assume with counters.

Overall, I'm leaning towards franklin's as the easiest for me to use. Has anyone used it? Is it good?

### #27

Posted 10 July 2014 - 07:23 AM

I'm no help. I've mostly just done this with all these resources.

MEP, I haven't even tried. WAY too much ink! At least these vintage resources are more concise.

I was using How to Tutor as my main curricula, but I have switched over to the Ruth Beechick guide for Ray's and my plan now is to look through the resources to see what I want to add to Ray's, when a few pages of Ray's are scheduled for weeks of drill.

Even without officially using these resources the "right" way, reading through them has influences my teaching, and I have added ideas from these book informally when teaching from How to Tutor and other books.

- Mrs. A likes this

### #28

Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:06 AM

I'm no help. I've mostly just done this with all these resources.

MEP, I haven't even tried. WAY too much ink! At least these vintage resources are more concise.

I was using How to Tutor as my main curricula, but I have switched over to the Ruth Beechick guide for Ray's and my plan now is to look through the resources to see what I want to add to Ray's, when a few pages of Ray's are scheduled for weeks of drill.

Even without officially using these resources the "right" way, reading through them has influences my teaching, and I have added ideas from these book informally when teaching from How to Tutor and other books.

Hmm. I suppose I could just use the idea to help me teach our core curriculum. Idk how well Singapore 1 is set up for that. I will have to look at it... Baird's looks like it would be easier to use as a resource. There is a definite section for each number 1-20. Grube's also has a very defined, and much shorter, section for each number. There are some word problems, but a lot less of them then the others. In franklin's the lessons are more integrated together (after you hit 11). Though if I was just going to work straight through, Franklin's looks more open and go, I wouldn't have to think about how to teach something. I guess I need to look over Singapore 1 and decide HOW I want to use Grube's method alongside it.

There are reprints of some of these books on amazon for $18. But the primary books only run a hundred pages (and Grube's is even less, only 60ish for just the first year part). I'm thinking it would be cheaper to just print the PDF myself. Even if I took it to office max and had them spiral bind it for me for a couple $. I do so like having a real book to teach from.

There are reprints of some of these books on amazon for $18. But the primary books only run a hundred pages (and Grube's is even less, only 60ish for just the first year part). I'm thinking it would be cheaper to just print the PDF myself. Even if I took it to office max and had them spiral bind it for me for a couple $. I do so like having a real book to teach from.

### #29

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:45 PM

After looking through the Singapore 1 HIG's, I see a lot of this stuff is taught in Singapore's number bonds. Though things are taught in a different order. But they move through the numbers much quicker. 8 weeks are spent on numbers 1-10, 5 weeks on numbers 11-20. In the second half of the year, the B book, they spend 7 weeks extending up to 40 and beginning multiplication and division. And later 5 weeks extending it up to 100.

I think I will use the Franklin book, they are all good books, but this one appeals to me the most. I plan to spend more time on the numbers up to 20. And just not worry about finishing Singapore 1 within 1 school year. It should be easy to break up to coordinate with Singapore. I'm not sure whether I will go through it first in Singapore or Franklin. At first I thought Singapore, and then follow with Franklin for more practice. But now I'm wondering if I might start with Franklin, being oral, then follow with Singapore which includes writing it. That way we would spend more time on learning the idea before using the symbols to represent it.

I'm thinking I should work through the book myself. Improve my mental math, create an answer book, and I'll be better prepared to teach it. Three birds with one stone!

eta: just noticed the Franklin book also goes up to 100.

### #31

Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:23 PM

I have going through the Franklin primary book and once it got to larger numbers and multiplication, I found myself thinking my oldest could really use this. I was going to get Strayer Upton PA, but I'm wondering if I should just use the Franklin book, since I like it. But I really prefer a real book.

Hunter, you've used SU, how does it compare with the Franklin book?

Hunter, you've used SU, how does it compare with the Franklin book?

### #32

Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:18 AM

Frank Hall arithmetic books are similar I think.

Here's the primer https://archive.org/...rimer00hallrich

I'm only on page 7 and I haven't seen the word "Oblong" since my primary school days

### #33

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:56 AM

I have going through the Franklin primary book and once it got to larger numbers and multiplication, I found myself thinking my oldest could really use this. I was going to get Strayer Upton PA, but I'm wondering if I should just use the Franklin book, since I like it. But I really prefer a real book.

Hunter, you've used SU, how does it compare with the Franklin book?

I'm sorry, but I don't remember the Franklin book well enough to compare it to S-U. Some of these books I used while I was still seizing so much more often and my memories of that time are pretty spotty.

Just the other day a friend was asking me about the storm the night before, and I realized I had a total blackout of the night before and knew NOTHING from the late afternoon to the next morning. Oh well.

This is one of those cases where I can't help you. Sorry. I'm just thankful I remember as much as I do remember!

### #34

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:16 AM

Ok,thanks anyway. Maybe if I can find the TOC of SU online... Somewhere I saw a larger sample than rainbow has... But where was it? CBD? CBE? Something like that.I'm sorry, but I don't remember the Franklin book well enough to compare it to S-U. Some of these books I used while I was still seizing so much more often and my memories of that time are pretty spotty!

Eta: I found it at CBD. It looks like it moves much faster than Franklin's Primary book. By pg 55 it's 3 digit adding with regrouping. After thinking over the Robinson curriculum, I was planning to spend some time at the beginning of the school year making sure my son has his addition and subtraction facts to 12 down. Before we begin the multiplication unit in Singapore math. Franklin primary should work well for that. So I think I will start with that. Afterwards I may move on to SU.

### #35

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:06 PM

Okay, as for that much, Franklin Book 1 is a grade 1 book right, and SU Book 1 is grade 3/4? I remember much more about SU than Franklin.

SU reviews and covers Grube's at an accelerated rate, for the 3rd graders that did not have formal arithmetic in grades 1 and 2, which was a common method at the turn of the 19th/20th century.

### #36

Posted 11 July 2014 - 05:11 PM

That's basically what I figured. Im looking at Franklin primary, i wonder if it is grades 1-2 and Franklin book 1 is grades 3-4 like SU. I will have to check .... So SU is based on Grube's? Good.

Eta: wow Franklin book 1 looks very different from SU samples. It keeps on working every number up to 100. I stopped looking after that. I really like the primary book, but I think I prefer SU, as far as I can tell from samples, over Franklin book 1. I am quite excited to use these!

Eta 2: found this great review of SU, including some pictures. http://desertramblin...hmetics-review/

After reading that I feel like I'd rather cover multiplication using SU instead of Franklin.

Eta: wow Franklin book 1 looks very different from SU samples. It keeps on working every number up to 100. I stopped looking after that. I really like the primary book, but I think I prefer SU, as far as I can tell from samples, over Franklin book 1. I am quite excited to use these!

Eta 2: found this great review of SU, including some pictures. http://desertramblin...hmetics-review/

After reading that I feel like I'd rather cover multiplication using SU instead of Franklin.

- Hunter likes this

### #37

Posted 12 July 2014 - 07:50 AM

That's basically what I figured. Im looking at Franklin primary, i wonder if it is grades 1-2 and Franklin book 1 is grades 3-4 like SU. I will have to check .... So SU is based on Grube's? Good.

Eta: wow Franklin book 1 looks very different from SU samples. It keeps on working every number up to 100. I stopped looking after that. I really like the primary book, but I think I prefer SU, as far as I can tell from samples, over Franklin book 1. I am quite excited to use these!

Eta 2: found this great review of SU, including some pictures. http://desertramblin...hmetics-review/

After reading that I feel like I'd rather cover multiplication using SU instead of Franklin.

It might help to read about Pestalozzi (1746-1827), who was the grand-daddy of modern elementary math teaching. Montessori and Froebel were both heavily influenced by him, though they went in different directions. Steiner seems to have been reacting more against his ideas, but might still have used some of them. I'm not sure what "Waldorf and vintage number recognition lessons" are, but number recognition and "object lessons" were an important part of Pestalozzi's system.

The teacher encourages the pupil in the development of language, observation, and mental skills which proceed from the

**"three elementary powers" of making sounds, forming images, and imagining concepts**, powers on which Pestalozzi based his whole educational practice. In aiming to make education*"a steady, unbroken development of these fundamental powers"*, and to ensure certain progress*"from obscure to definite sense-impressions, from definite sense-impressions to clear images, and from clear images to distinct ideas"*, he seeks to base all teaching on sound, form, and number. (...)
From such a conviction grew his methods in elementary education. All activities were planned to enable correct ideas of number, form, and language to be developed from good and full perception.

From what I've read, Grube's innovation was to take Pestalozzi's approach and change the order of the lessons, to teach all four operations at once. The "Manual of Methods" doesn't follow Grube; they specifically say, "do not teach multiplication and division in the primary class" (p. 110). I don't know what Strayer-Upton does (can't find my copies), but the review linked above talks about the section on multiplication starting part way through the book, so I'm thinking maybe it doesn't follow him either.

Anyway, it seems as if Pestalozzi laid the groundwork for all of these methods. He isn't talked about much these days either, but he does get a mention in all the "history of education" textbooks.

- Hunter likes this

### #38

Posted 12 July 2014 - 09:24 AM

Waldorf is based off of Grube's 4 processes, but I never knew what the other parts of Grube were based off of, I heard that it was someone earlier. So I guess that is Pestalozzi. I figured the Manual of Methods was talking against Grube's 4 processes, but not the rest of it. So I guess it would be better to say the Manual of Methods is based off of Pestalozzi.

I like the SU order of presentation. I think a review for 3rd graders using Grube's is good, but I'm not sold on Grube's 4 processes for first grade. I am sold on the rest of Grube, which I guess I'm finding out is more accurately attributed to Pestalozzi.

Vaquitita, that is a nice SU review!

ElizaG, thanks for these links!

- ElizaG likes this

### #39

Posted 12 July 2014 - 09:41 AM

So I guess it would be better to say the Manual of Methods is based off of Pestalozzi.

Some aspects of it, anyway. I'd guess that there were other influences as well.

The teaching approaches in these manuals were often called "common school methods," referring to the American system of public (common) elementary schools that got started around 1840. I just came across a book from 1895 titled

*The Dawn of Common School Methods Or, Pestalozzi The Disciple of Rousseau and Inspirer of the Herbartian System*. Unfortunately, it's not online, but the title is long enough to get the author's point across.
Before Pestalozzi, the big name in education reform was Locke, and before Locke it was Comenius. They were all considered progressives, even radicals, though they've now been around long enough to have their own tradition.

## Aucun commentaire:

## Enregistrer un commentaire