约翰·菲力特力赫·赫尔巴特 (Johann Friedrich Herbart)
—— 德国教育学家、哲学家、心理学家,有“教育学之父”的称谓
  约翰·菲力特力赫·赫尔巴特——公元1776年出生在德国西北部奥登堡(Olderberg)。祖父是医生,父亲先是律师,后来升为枢密院顾问官,母亲是一位美丽聪慧而且具有深厚文学修养的妇人。赫尔巴特是独生子,家庭温暖,使他感到无比幸福;但不幸有一天他不慎跌进沸水桶中,遭到灼伤,使得一辈子身材瘦小,无法健壮。赫尔巴特的求学和事业成就受他母亲的影响最深。在他从小念书的时候,他的母亲每天陪伴着他,督促他念书,连上课都在他身边,甚至陪伴他一起研究希腊文。
  赫尔巴特最早受教于尤金(Ulzen)牧师,获益甚多。尤金的教育哲学认为:教育主要目的是培养思想的纯洁、果断和有恒,这种理论对他的教育思想,有深巨的影响。赫尔巴特12岁到18岁进入一所德国中学读书,此时已显出其天才。学校对他的评语是:表现优异,守秩序,品德优良,对自己天赋才能已懂得力求发展和改进。他多才多艺,不但具有数学、语言和哲学的才能,而且是天才音乐家和文学家。他的思想成熟很早,11岁就研究理则学,12岁研究形而上学,14岁写了一篇论文称为《意志自由》。16岁就开始研究康德(Kant)的思想,19岁他就批评当时著名哲学家薛陵(Schilling)和菲希特(Fichete)的思想。他攻击菲希特所谓“自创自己世界”的观念,因为他认为学生本身不可能创造自己世界,而是依赖着教师教导和外在世界的影响,才能形成自己的世界。显然此时他的思想已能深悉自己心理过程;而且具有独特的见解。他的父亲送他到耶拿(Jena)去学习法律,但是他没有兴趣。18岁到21岁进入耶拿大学,当时有许多著名哲学家和文学家都在这所大学。由于他母亲的帮助,他认识了哲学家施勒,奠定了他从事教育和研究哲学的基础。21岁他接受母亲的建议,到瑞士恩得拉琴(Interlaken, Switzerland)州长家担任其三个儿子的家庭教师。在教学3年中,每个月他要写给家长关于他教学的方法和成就的报告,这段教学经验深深地影响了他的教学理论。
  1802年,赫尔巴特到格廷根大学(University of Gottinger)教书,所写的作品主要是关于教育方面的。1809年,他应聘到东普鲁士科隆堡大学(University of Konigsberg)哲学讲座。因哲学家康德曾以担任此讲座而成名,故当他受聘时,感到非常荣幸。他说:“我受聘这最荣誉的哲学讲座是非常的快乐,小时候当我研究这伟大的哲学家(康德)时,我就像梦中祈求似地向往着这一所大学。”他在这所大学一共任教25年,主要著作都是心理学方面的:1816年写了一本《心理学》教科书(Text-Book in Psychology),1824年写了 《心理学是一种科学》(Psychology as a Science),此外还有其它一些有系统的哲学作品。
  赫尔巴特对黑格尔(Hegel)的思想非常崇敬。他曾感到不能亲自听到黑格尔的演说,是很大的遗憾。当黑格尔去世的时候,他希望能到柏林大学担任讲座,接任其位置,可惜没有成功。2年之后,他回到格廷根大学教书,一直到1841年去世,这时期作品比较少;他写了一本最实用的书称为“教育学纲要”(The Outline of Educatoinal Doctrine)。
  赫尔巴特是近代第一个试图把教育建立为一门科学的人。古代社会的柏拉图、亚里士多德,以及后来的夸美纽斯、洛克、卢梭、裴斯泰洛齐等人,都曾提出过自己的教育体系。但都没有形成科学规律的形式。赫尔巴特试图在伦理学的基础上建立教育目的论,在心理学基础上建立教育方法论;他不仅指明了教育学的研究对象,指出了它同其他学科的相互关系,而且提出了科学的术语、定义和分类。
  赫尔巴特的教育理论
  ⑴ 教育目的
  赫尔巴特认为教育科学第一步工作是先发现教育的最高目的,而后寻求达成这种教育目的的工具。他以所研究出的心理学、伦理学以及形而上学,来指导其教育理论,并以伦理学为其教育目的的理论基础。他主张教育的目的是个人品格和社会道德。
  赫尔巴特认为,“教育的最高目的”,“教育的唯一的工作与全部工作可以总结在这一概念之中----道德”;而这种道德是由五种永恒不变的观念,即内在自由的观念、完善的观念、善意的观念、法权的观念和正义的观念组成的。赫尔巴特还把儿童未来的目的分为两部分,即希望达到的目的和必要的目的。所谓希望达到的目的是一个人有时可以根据自由选择而给自己提出的目的,或者说与职业选择有关的目的。为达到这一目的,教育就必须发展人的多样的、各方面的感受性,培养人的多方面的兴趣。所谓必要的目的就是道德的目的,这是一个人在任何活动中都必须达到的目的。赫尔巴特认为教育的本质就是以各种观念来丰富儿童的心灵,把他们培养成具有完美的道德品格的人。他不赞成裴斯塔洛齐对教育目的的见解,裴氏认为教育的目的是培养儿童各种能力,和官能(Faculty)调和的发展,但他则认为官能是不能分开多种的,心灵本身作用是统一的,用不着求其调和的发展。同时他又反对卢梭(Rousseau)对教育目的的见解,卢梭认为教育目的是促进儿童个人自然的发展,而他则认为教育目的应顾及社会的适应。赫尔巴特主张个人品格与社会道德,两者并重而不冲突,譬如善良意志、社会合作的行为、正义以及适当地服从权威等,都是他所谓品德的含义。
  赫尔巴特以为品德是内在自由的观念,成为心灵持久的意识状态(The idea of inner freedom as a constant state of mind)。所谓内在自由观念,是一种自愿的意志。心灵持久的意识状态,是观念持久地存留在意识中,而且支配着心灵。品德具有自愿而持久的意志,可以控制个人的行为。因此教育最重要的任务是建设心灵,使品德的观念成为最强的观念,这种品德的观念,是靠着正确知识的判断和领悟而来的。他说,当意志和教育领悟相符合的时候,品德便得到了。换言之,品德是靠着后天的教育而得到的。固然未受教育的人,不是不能为善,但是其为善可能是由于习惯或模仿,缺乏正确知识的判断,与领悟观念的选择,无法如受教育者具有自愿而持久的善良意志。
  ⑵ 教育内容
  赫尔巴特教学理论是基于他的心理学,称之为“统觉联合论”。他认为心灵原始是一无所有,只是接受外界印象的受容器。我们内省了解的,只是一些感觉、愿望和观念。心灵作用首先靠与外界接触,而后产生种种统觉;各种统觉联合方成心灵作用的种种范畴,这些统觉的互相联合或排斥,有一定的机械性。他甚至用数学公式来说明心灵作用的现象,以奠定近代教育科学化的基础。
  赫尔巴特认为,教育是建设心灵或培养品德的过程,而建设心灵的原料是教材与课程。他主张教材应包括两种知识:
  第一种知识是与外界事物接触的知识,从物体本身、力量性质和自然法则推理而来的实证知识。第一种知识来自与事物接触的感官感觉,就像未进学校的儿童累积了许多感官得来的具体经验;但是这些经验进入学校后就会发现有许多错误,因为这些知识太偏狭,缺乏有系统的推理。教师要补救这种缺点,应运用两种方法:一是提示学生接触广泛事物,使得到完整而广泛的见识;二是教导学生从这些感官得来的具体经验,经思考和判断的推理,使得到实证的知识。
  第二种知识是来自社会关系交互作用的体会。他认为比第一种知识更重要,因为这是所有智力和道德发展的基础。这是从个人与个人间的谅解和判断,扩大到对整个社会的广泛谅解,最后到个人和社会共同与神的交互关系。从历史、文学、语言、宗教以及艺术方面的教材可以获得这种知识;他特别强调历史和文学的重要,他主张和文化时代理论(Culture Epoch Theory)相配合。他认为人类经过不同文化的时代,一个时代比上一时代更进步而且更复杂。如果要使当代文化更成熟,必须先了解过去的经验。他说,历史是人类的老师。而且他认为当代成人社会和伦理关系、道德目的和其判断,往往太复杂,与学生生活实际经验脱节。因此他主张最好让学生阅读历史和过去的文学,比较更简明,而且更能引起学生的兴趣。阅读过去英雄生平的故事,其生活、行为、和思想都含有启发学生伦理领悟和培养品格的效果。他当家庭教师的时候,使用荷马的“奥得赛”(Homer's Odyssey)为教本,发现希腊原始英雄品格、简单生活以及道德情况,都很适合其学生的伦理水准。后来他的门徒依照其文化时代理论,设计一套教材,从神仙故事、呆鹅妈妈故事(Mother Goose Stories)、圣经旧约,到希腊文学和圣经新约,最后则为近代文学。
  赫尔巴特主张课程组织应有两种原则:
  第一种是集中原则,是将学生注意力集中在单一的观念,将意识集中在单一的思想。他的门徒根据这种原则将课程组织为“核心课程”,即在课程中将所有研究集中在一共同中心科目;譬如他的门徒戚勒(Ziller)选择历史为中心科目,美国赫尔巴特学派学者墨格牟尔(McMurrys)、佛兰克(Frank)等选择地理为中心科目。采用集中原则的理由有三:一是课程中所有学科研究范围太广,无法全部均衡顾及。二是心灵作用统一,因而个人知识也应统一;三是伦理观念是基于心灵作用统一原则。
  第二种是相关原则,即使中心科目的每个部分都包括相关科目充分的数据;譬如以研究发现美国新大陆为中心科目,那么有关的历史、地理、绘画、地图、自然、文学和数学等方面均须适当的配合,成为完整的教材。因为有关教材的配合,使学习更易体会。
  赫尔巴特认为道德教育不仅直接影响儿童的心灵,而且能指导他们的感情、愿望和行为,形成他们的性格。道德教育的方法应该依靠学生已有的美德。教师要善于发现学生的长处,找到学生的善良特征,甚至学坏了的学生的善良特征。用一个火花燃起另一个火花。道德教育的方法,他认为包括以下几种:约束学生;限定学生;规定明确的行为规则;使儿童心灵保持“宁静和明朗”;以奖励和谴责去鼓舞儿童的心灵;劝告规律的生活方式,家长要保证儿童合理的生活秩序,同时,还要帮助学生分辨是非,抵制社会不良风气的侵袭。赫尔巴特所建立管理儿童的制度曾经广泛地推行着,这种制度的缺点在压抑儿童的创造性,使他们绝对服从成人的权威。
  ⑶ 教学方法
  赫尔巴特认为,管理、教学和道德是整个教育过程必不可少的内容。他说:“如果不坚强而温和地抓住管理的缰绳,任何功课的教学都是不可能的。”在他看来,管理的方法,第一是威吓,第二是监督以及与此相连的命令和禁止,第三是包括体罚在内的处罚。同时,威信和爱是两种辅助的管理方法。
  赫尔巴特强认为,不但建设心灵的原料(教材内容和课程组织)非常重要,而且建设心灵的程序和方法(教学方法)也同样重要。他批评“许多学生知识的获得是死记,对学生需要和经验毫无关联”的观点,认为这是错误的,他提倡启发式教学法作为建立一个生动活泼的心灵、严格地配合着人类思考的基本原则。
  赫尔巴特发展了前人关于教育性教学的观点,把教学作为教育的最主要和基本的手段。他认为,没有教学,就没有教育,所有教学都要发生教育作用。教学如果没有进行道德教育,只是一种没有目的的手段,道德教育如果没有教学,就是一种失去了手段的目的。他把人们的兴趣分为六类:经验的兴趣、思辨的兴趣、审美的兴趣、同情的兴趣、社会的兴趣、宗教的兴趣。为发展学生的兴趣,他认为首先必须培养学生的主动精神,因为“津津有味地学习的东西,能够很快地学会巩固地掌握”。他主张教学方法有两大基本原则:
  第一原则是学生的兴趣。他认为教学首先必须引起学生兴趣,所谓兴趣有着特殊的意义。他解释兴趣为一种内心的愿望。依照他的见解,心灵是如溪流似的意识状态,凡与外界接触所产生的观念都进入心灵,但并不是长久留在意识中;不久前得到的观念会瞬间在意识中消失,而另有新观念会出现;旧观念并非永远忘记,只是移入非意识领域,一有机会仍然可以回复到意识中。心灵意识状态就是如此不断变动的现象。观念一旦存在于意识,便想长久保留下去。这种倾向往往遵从心理学的两项法则:第一法则是常数法则(Law of Frequency)。一个观念愈常进入意识中,即使其已移入非意识领域,但仍愈易回到意识中,愈有更大力量控制心灵;第二法则是联想法则(Law of Association),即如果许多观念联合起来形成统觉团的组合力量,这力量可以决定何种观念可以进入意识。兴趣是在心灵中的一种积极的力量,决定何种观念和经验会引起注意。如果学生缺乏自然的兴趣,教师应引导其产生自愿的兴趣。引导产生自愿的兴趣,不要用强制或人为的方法,如用分数、奖励或竞争等的方式,而是用联想的方式。譬如学生对算术和测量没有兴趣,教师要想办法让其了解算术和测量是具有兴趣的科学、设计、建筑或其它方面知识学习的基础,引起其产生自愿学习算术和测量的兴趣。他认为,知识间存在相互联系的关系,并可以形成观念圈(Idea of circle)。教师总能找出一条路,自知道的内容起始,引导与不知道的内容发生关联,从而引发学生自愿学习的兴趣。教师不但要引导学生从有关旧观念基础趋向特定新观念的兴趣,而且最好能建立起组合新旧有观念的思想圈,调控学生的兴趣。
  第二原则是类化作用(Apperception)。类化作用是以旧经验为吸收新知识的基础。一种新观念的体会必须用旧有的其它观念来解释,譬如“海湾”这个词,是靠我们已有“水”、“颜色”和“声音”的旧观念来体会其含义。医生对于人类健康和疾病有研究的经验或知识,因此对病人发生的类似病况可以正确地加以诊断,而一般人便不懂诊断病情,因为缺乏专门知识。同样的,一个原始野蛮人看到日蚀,以为是黑暗的力量和魔鬼征服了日光、神和人生的现象;而科学家看到日蚀,却认为是天体运行之中的机械的现象。同一日蚀的现象,而所产生的认识不同,原因是各自的知识与经验背景不同。旧观念是许多观念的组合,可能形成具备更大影响力的统觉团(Apperceptive mass)。所以,教师不但要利用学生的旧观念以吸收新教材,同时应该利用新旧观念类化的结果,进一步推理,获得有系统的原则或统觉团。这可以影响学生未来的学习及品德的形成。
  赫尔巴特认为上述兴趣原则是统觉团的功能,有吸收特定新观念的潜力。
  赫尔巴特以统觉来阐明教学过程,并提出了教学阶段的理论:教学过程分为明了、联想、系统和方法四个阶段。明了需要向学生明确地讲述新的教材;联想需要通过教师和学生交互,促使学生把新旧观念联合起来;系统引导学生在新旧观念联系的基础上,去寻找结论、定义和规律;方法需要指导学生把已学得的知识应用于实际,培养学生有逻辑地、创造性思维的能力。赫尔巴特所规定的这些阶段,由他的学生齐勒(Ziller)修改为预备、提示、比较、总括、应用五段,称五段教学法。
Johann Friedrich Herbart(1776–1841)
  Johann Friedrich Herbart was a renowned German philosopher and educator who led the nineteenth-century interest in Realism and is considered among the founders of modern scientific pedagogy. He studied under Johann Gottlieb Fichte at Jena in 1794 and in 1808 became Immanuel Kant’s successor as professor of philosophy at K?nigsberg. He developed a philosophy of mind and pioneered a new theory of education that became known as “Herbartianism.” He stressed the study of the psychological processes of learning as a means of devising educational programs based on the aptitudes, abilities, and interests of students. By maintaining that a science of education was possible, Herbart furthered the idea that education should be a subject for university study.
  Herbart and Herbartianism
  The widespread and increasing influence of Herbart and his disciples in the work of education makes a brief treatment of this German philosopher and educationist desirable in the present work. John Frederick Herbart, b. at Oldenburg, 1776; d. at G?ttingen, 1841. He was the son of a lawyer whose wife, a woman of brilliant parts, was subsequently divorced from her husband. The child was delicate and was at first educated by an able tutor under the supervision of his mother. He exhibited extraordinary precocity, was of quick intelligence and retentive memory, and showed remarkable aptitude for mathematics, physical science and music. He began logic at eleven and metaphysics at twelve; he went to the gymnasium of his native town at thirteen and, after a distinguished course there, passed to the University of Jena at the age of eighteen to study law. This subject he neglected, becoming an enthusiastic student of philosophy under Fichte, then at the zenith of his fame. Herbart, however, was of too critical a mind to be content with Fichte's Idealism, and at the age of twenty began the elaboration of a philosophic system of his own. In 1807, after three years, his course still incomplete, he left the University to become a private tutor in the family of a German nobleman. The education of the three sons aged 14, 10, and 8 was entirely entrusted to Herbart on condition that he should write a lengthy report by letter to the father every two months. This was Herbart's first and most important experience in the work of teaching. Five of the letters which remain are amongst his most interesting writings and contain some of his main educational ideas. During this period he visited Pestalozzi at Burgdorf. In 1799 he resigned his tutorships, devoted himself for a couple of years to the study of philosophy and wrote some small works on education including appreciations of Pestalozzi's writings. In 1802 he went to G?ttingen, obtained his degree of doctor and began lecturing on philosophy and pedagogics at the modest stipend of $225 per annum. Between 1802 and 1808 he published several pedagogic works, including the "?sthetic Revelation of the World" and the "Science of Education"; also works on metaphysics and logic. In 1809 he was appointed to the chair at K?nigsberg formerly occupied by Kant, where he lectured on philosophy and pedagogics for over twenty years. His chief interest, however, was in the latter subject. With the approval of the Minister of Education he founded a pedagogic seminary having a practicing school attached. In this he himself taught for an hour daily. In 1809 he married an Englishwoman. During the remainder of his life he lectured to large audiences, and published sundry works on education. He returned to profess at G?ttingen in 1833, where he laboured till his death in 1841.
  General Philosophical Views
  Though Herbart was an able and original thinker his influence in philosophy has not been considerable. In metaphysics his scientific temper led him to advocate a system of Realism in opposition to the Idealism then in vogue. In ethics he approximates towards Kant's teaching in some respects; but instead of Kant's Categorical Imperative he puts forward five Practical or Moral Ideas--the Ideas of Inner Freedom, Perfection, Benevolence, Right, and Equity--as the frame-work of his moral system. In psychology he rejected the doctrine, generally accepted from Aristotle to Kant, of a soul endowed with certain native faculties or powers. For this he substitutes a simple soul with presentations, states, or impressions. As, however, in his view, we know nothing about this simple soul in itself, after it has once been postulated as the arena for the operations of the presentations, the soul becomes, for all practical purposes, merely the series or mass of these presentations, whilst their permutations, interactions, and combinations constitute the entire fibre of our mental life. Herbart strove to apply mathematics to the working of these presentations and to establish quantitative laws describing their mutual interactions. This attempt had in itself no success, but indirectly stimulated the subsequent allied movement in favour of experimental measurement of mental states carried on by Fechner Weber, Wundt, and others. There is remarkable similarity between Herbart and the English Associationist school in their common mechanical view of the nature of mental life, though Herbart is spiritualistic whilst their tend towards Materialism.
  Herbart's main interest in philosophy however, is the problem of Education--its object, its method, its possibilities. Education is in fact both the starting point and the goal of all his philosophical inquiries. The end of education is, he holds, determined by ethics. It is the formation of noble, cultivated, moral character. Morality is goodness of will. Moral conduct cannot be embraced, as Kant imagined, under one principle. It is best included under the five practical ideas. Ideal character is to be attained by "many-sided interest". The full development of the individual, the realization of all his capabilities should be then the constant aim of the process of education. The main foundations on which Herbart's whole theory of education rests are his doctrines of apperception and interest. Apperception, with Herbart means the act or process of assimilating, appropriating and identifying an object, impression or idea. All progress in knowledge after the first percipient act is a process of apperception, and the character of each new perception is determined by those which have gone before. The first sensation or impression affords no knowledge, but results in a presentation which persists in existence gradually sinking down below the surface of consciousness. This original presentation existing in the sub-conscious state of our mental life will be partially wakened and called up into conscious activity by the next impression. Thus aroused it modifies the reception of the latter and partially fuses with it. Again this pair of presentations or this compound state similarly sinking down into subconscious life still remains ready to appropriate the next impression assimilating it in like fashion. But the method of the reception and the character of the appropriation is constantly varying with the increasing collection of presentations or ideas already in the mind. The facility and completeness with which each fresh idea is assimilated is determined by what has gone before. Herein, according to the Herbartian school, lies the importance of directing the process of apperception by judicious selection of the materials which are to constitute the experience of the child. As the mind, in this view is simply built up entirely out of the ideas which it has received, the kinds of ideas presented to it and the order in which they come are of the utmost moment in the work of education. Ideas or objects are assimilable or apperceivable when partially familiar; a totally foreign idea has no friends already lodged in the mind to welcome it.