The reviewer criticizes Davis' Technique of Teaching for ignoring scientific analyses of learning and referring teachers only to empirical, a-priori pedagogies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q1
Currency · newest study 1922 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The reviewer finds that in dealing with the separate subjects Davis makes little or no reference to psychological facts from measurement results, and that chapter bibliographies refer to almost none of the scientific analyses of learning. → H. O. R 1922

Evidence¶

H. O. R 1922¶

H. O. R. (1922). New Publications. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.jstor.org/journal/jeduropsych

q1 · i? · review · r?

Reviewer's evaluative judgment of Davis' Technique of Teaching (Macmillan, New York, 1922, pp. VIII + 346). He reports the bibliographies refer prospective teachers to "other books in the same category as his own—empirical and a -priori pedagogies" rather than scientific learning analyses.

"In dealing with the separate subjects little or no reference is made to the psychological facts now available from the results of measurement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The reviewer argues that general teaching-technique manuals of his era make little or no use of the psychological facts available from measurement-based studies of school subjects — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The reviewer asserts education is entering a second stage in the use of statistics: from blind descriptive arithmetic toward discovery of scientific law and prediction