1878 — Page 218

##

學但照廠監院意見不甚相宜,蓋該學童在院肄業六年尙多未能說英語者,况在大書院未用文法教以若何說法若何作法,庶可明悟。在大書院亦教幾何原本及代數學及化堂之事,但要知作英字之文章,釋華文以英字,其法仍須當面試作,先則分用單句,重句合句譯華文,卽教異國人學英文極貴之法。現雖有用之者,亦只是學童在家之時,並非在館富助他學說英語,不亦甚難乎。按照敝監院意見,在大書院不甚記得用英字作文章及以英字釋華文,又無循序漸進之法,故教師中有未諳華人言語者,欲解此英文之奥妙,使華人小子明悟,似未合用。又初學者用此書而學,實爲太難,因在内甚少尋常所用句語。用之書本在埃蘭國所印,原爲小子入館時已能言英語者所用,但用以教華人小子初進者,名學童中有三百三十六名之多,不甚能說英語者,而精說英語者不過八人焉。又大書院所用教法,做監院以爲極似在英國教英人小子模樣,幾如忘却此學童中最多於未能說英語者。况華字有聲音之別,故舉國書塾教訓學童,不惟觀其字形,且教以發音。

若字堂教以各國史記,故莫若先教此而後教也。來教法多備其間湊合華文之節奏,自有不期然而然者。泰西教小子之法由此更覺明,竊思中國千百年來教法多有不善者,况華文不克與華童驅而進,且教伊學華文時必須有英華人教師約束,故教伊學華文須另立一班,以其學華文之故。華童學英語土談之機會無多,又因外國小子不遵小子善說英語者在彼亦甚寥寥,更因並無遊玩之區也夫。外學童察學習其獲益少而阻碍多,因英國所稱英華班者卽該學童之土談,不是華人語言者是,是華人故分班亦有二樣,有日英華班者,有日華班者。大言大書院教習華文之事,以學童中有數十輩不諳華語者,故分班教學。

##

As to the method of teaching adopted in the Central School, I am of opinion that the school is, in the whole, taught too much like an English school for English boys, in comparative disregard of the fact that the majority of the boys neither speak English nor hear English spoken outside the school, and that, as Mr. STEWART stated, out of 453 boys at the beginning of last year as many as 336 did not speak English at all and only 8 could speak it idiomatically. The school-books also, which were made for boys in Ireland, who on entering school have a fair knowledge of English colloquial, are ill adapted for use in teaching Chinese boys, who come to school to learn English colloquial in the first instance. These school-books are far too difficult to begin with, contain little colloquial and have too little of regular gradation, to make it easy for masters, some of whom are unable to speak Chinese and thereby prevented explaining peculiarities of idiom in an intelligible manner, to teach much English speaking. There is further too little attention given, in my opinion, to the practice of English composition and to written translations from Chinese to English, which valuable means of teaching English to foreigners is at present entirely relegated to home exercises. English composition and written translations from Chinese into English might be used in the school as a means of teaching grammar practically, by requiring the boys, under the eyes of the master, to make and form simple and eventually complex sentences in various ways, so as to make them thoroughly understand the practical application of the rules of grammar to the art of speaking and writing correctly. Finally, the teaching of such subjects as Geometry, Algebra and Chemistry seems to me of doubtful utility as long as the majority of the boys leave the Central School, after six years of schooling, without being able to speak English, and as long as History remains entirely excluded from the range of subjects taught in the school.

As regards the Chinese department of the Central School, there is a division, made necessary by the presence of non-Chinese boys in the school, between the so called Anglo-Chinese and Chinese classes, the former being intended for boys whose native language is other than Chinese. The presence of foreign boys in the Central School is on the whole, more an impediment than an advantage, as those foreign boys who speak English idiomatically are too few, and, in the absence of a recreation ground, have too little opportunity to enable the other boys to learn much English from them conversationally; whilst on the other hand foreign boys are as a rule not amenable to discipline when under the tuition of native masters and necessitate special arrangements to teach them the Chinese written language, as they cannot keep pace with the Chinese boys, and require the presence of an English master during these Chinese lessons so as to maintain discipline.

Now as to the method of teaching the Chinese language, adopted in the Central School, the defect I noticed in the English department, viz., of following too much the methods of teaching in ...