ADVICE TO TEACHERS

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 55, 7 March 1922, Page 7

ADVICE TO TEACHERS

PSYCHO-ANALYSIS IN SCHOOL

ENCOURAGING. THE DAY DREAM,

(WOK OUR OWN CORRMPONMNT.)

- _ LONDON,. lOth January. During the educatioaal conference that extended'over a fortnight, tho lectures on psychology made a special appeal to teachers who are eager to get more and more the), understanding' and insight into the working of the child, mind.. An address by Professor J. Adams on "Psycho-Analy-sis and, its Value and Limitations ,from the Standpoint of the' Practical Teacher" was very useful in the jadvice given to teachers to be very careful in using psy-cho-analysis in school; but he was keen that they should' thoinsolves understand as much as possible* about psychology itself. He laid down some well-considered principles which shoud guide schoolmasters and mistresses in applying psychological tests, and the limitations which they should be careful not to overstep, thus: 1. Make-psycho-analysis, as a philosophy or-psychology, an extension of ,ordinary psychology, and study it in order to know what the unconscience meant.

2. Confine it almost entirely to whole, some, noimal children.

3f Try to apply psyohb-analytic»l psy-oholojjy-^to the teaching of history, to the management of the class, to the training of character, etc. . 4i Discover pathological cases wherever they are likely to ooourtnd refer them at once to experts—but, don't be too-'casily convinced that it is a patlblogical case.. 6.- Bo very careful not to let th& pupils know that--they are being observed psych o-analytically. It would become a deplorable system, if they began to join in and play up (Laughter.). . , ( , Above all, be careful in talking outside about any individual case, for what is revealed should be considered as secret as' the Confessional.- ' . . . , ' ' >MOI>ERN CONTRACTION! Profeeeor Adams considers psycho-analy-sis rather an ugly word, which wag now being reduced by one syllable to psychanalysis. Apart'altogether from "the njame, the thing was exceedingly confusing. -It stood for.two totally different things. It meant a kind of psychology, and it meant a | method of. exercising that .• psychology. The two things were almost independent of one another, and for practical purposes they could be separated. Whether 1* it should be applied at all by the teacher was a gu?stion requiring very careful consideration. At any rate they had to study it in order to. come to a reasoned conclusion on the' subjeob, and it. was their duty as teachers to make up', their minds on the question. Whether the' teacher I adopted the method or not ho would benefit by an investigation of tho newer views, and he could not help applying them to his work in same form or another, oven though he utterly rejected the principles of "psychanalysis" 1 -—tho psychology of the "un-oonscienoe." Till recently* psychology oould have baen accurately described as the study of the conscience, but lately it had becomo fashionable to sepeak of the study .of behaviour when opposed to conscience. One of his students had asked: "Why not call it unconscionable psychology? 1' (Laughter.) It was to penetrate into the depths of tho unconsoience, and those 'Who did this became to! a certain extent mystics, speaking . with , contempt of the old psychologists. Whatever good psycho-analysis might do it must not knook on the head the really practical psychology required for school work. Teachers should realise that the ■'unconscious" heaped up all the good as well as the .'evil facts of experience.' We took the good for granted and concentrated our i attention on the evil. . Since psychoanalysts were nearly always confronted with pathological cases their books made painful reading, and we got the impres-: sion that 'the unconscious, was a seething cesspool. We all had normal tendencies that could not be' allowed to develop themselves in decent society, and had to be suppressed, but this suppression was not an' unwholesome groeess and. need not lead to evil consequences. ■ They, were told that suppression led to repression, whioh was x dangerous. When repression began to react in a certain way no doubt it had evil effects, but was" it not right that certain ideas should be thrust down to the lowermost depths and kept there for ever ? Did not the great majority go through life without)any of these violent crises of which the case books were full?

A BIG RESPONSIBILITY.

Psychology brought home to the teacher that he was responsible for all eternity for what he allowed to pass into the mind of his pupils. Many teachers thought it right to prevent children thinking of themselves more highly than they ought to do. Too often teachers did not realise that in their attempt to tone down the children's love of the limelight they were exercising their own love of the same thing, (LaugTiter.) One of his students, asked wny he wanted to be a teacher, said it was because in the dictation lesson he would have the book. (Laughter.) While the teacher must not attempt elaborate psycho-analysis in the school, ho might use the method in an incidental way. He had known the method used to detect school thieves. Cases of stammering sometimes yielded to it. The psychology of the "howler" had yet to be worked out, but in a few years there would be quite an elaborate and scientific work on it.

POWER OF IMAGINATION.

Miss Richardson, who is- an advocate of Emilo Cove's methods, dealt with the value to 'teachers of auto-suggestion. If teachers could use it and could suggost to themselves the things they wanted in their work,'they would gain in strength, control, and confidence instead of being worried, annoyed, or irritated by N things that happened. • They should, look at thingk calmly, and, above a[l, use their imagination. After all, imagination was practically inspiration. Perhaps we had left imagination and inspiration too much to painters and poets. If wo could only use it in all our lives and bring it to bear in all our-"life it transformed lifo and made- it 'much more wonderful and. interesting. It was often asked, she said, it was wrong to use suggestion in the case of children. It might be clangorous, but was' it not better to. puido imagination than to leave it a victim to every suggestion, good, bad, and indifferent?