Sessional_Paper_1898 — Page 175

171

absurd errors arising apparently from attempts to remember statements in the text books which had nothing to do with the questions. In Vc, we noticed a curious instance of the mistake already referred to as common in reading, viz., the pronunciation of eat and similar sounds-it and its being given as parts of the verb to eat. A few papers in VA, B were satisfactory, but boys evidently expected certain questions and wrote matter which they were not asked for. In VI half the boys did fairly, but those at the bottom of the class were very weak indeed. The work of VII is very elementary. Parsing in the lower school was poor.

+

Geopaphy.-Class I took a paper on Physical Geography as well as on the geography of Europe. A few boys did excellently showing that the subject had been well taught, but as a whole the work was spoilt by some very weak papers. There was a common confusion between trade winds and monsoons: the variation in the length of the day at a given place was too often ascribed to the distance of the earth from the sun which was frequently said to be greater in winter than in summer. The practice of guessing, which is not confined to one class, should be strongly discouraged. Class II had studied the geography of England; about a quarter of the boys did well, the rest did not seem to understand the subject. It appeared as if the few at the top had been taught at the expense of the rest of the class. It is necessary to teach boys to answer the questions set, and not to write down random answers, or lists of names not required. There were far too many stupid answers (as "From London to Calais by railway we pass Leeds," "Severn flows N.E. to Humber

86 and The coalfields are Ceylon,

the sea.

Russia, South and West Indies"). The maps drawn from memory were good. About half the boys in Class III did satisfactory work; the B section being considerably better than the a. The subject had evidently been carefully taught, but the map-drawing was rather disappointing. The liabit of guessing was again evident. One boy, after writing "Crimea is a town in Germany," wrote "Crimea is a town in Denmark." There were again many ridiculously wrong answers. Class IV offered the geography of China. A fair number of these papers were satisfactorily done, but there were an appalling number of mistakes arising from guessing or ignorance of English. There is too much learning by rote. Many boys do not understand what they write. There were frequent confusions between imports and exports, between imports and seaports, between imports and importance. We think it is right that boys should be taught the geography of their own country; and we would suggest that the geography of China be the subject of lessons in at least two classes. In drawing maps boys should be taught to mark the positions of towns as well as to insert the names, and, in doing so, not to put the position in They should also be taught to enter in their maps only such names as they are asked to enter. If the text book on China in use now in the School is to be continued, we hope that it may be revised. There does not appear to be consistency in the romanising of Chinese names: for instance, we notice Chungkeng, Chungking, Choongking for the same city; So-ngan and Si-ngan; Kew-kiang and Kiu-kiang; Shan-tung and Shang-tung; Quang-sai and Quang-si; Anam and Annam, &c.; and the provinces of Kiang-si and Kiang su confused. Class V: Many boys gave definitions well, but failed largely in giving examples in Europe and Asia, which continents they were supposed to have studied. The work of the lower part of the class was very poor: the definitions were much confused, showing that boys had not understood what they had been taught. It seems a pity that the maps to be drawn from memory, which were fairly well done, should not be maps of at least part of the coun- tries learnt from the text book. Had the subject been Africa (the same as the map), we think many boys would have done rauch better. Class VI: The fact that two or three boys got fair marks, and one (in A) good marks, points to a failure in the rest of the class which should have been avoided. Boys, who are taught "definitions," should be able to give fair examples of them. Scarcely any boys could give the capitals of England, China, and India. The maps of "Hongkong drawn from memory were for the most part good.

Composition:-In Class I and in two divisions of Class V there was a high percentage of passes. In the other classes the percentage varied from 50 to 70, except in Class IIc (Junior) which was miserably weak. The highest class wrote on the question, "What are the best means of developing the resources of China." Five good essays were sent in from each section of the class. There was little evidence of original personal effort, but several boys showed an appreciation of China's condition, and an acquaintance with schemes of reform which have from time to time been suggested in news- papers. In the best papers the examiners are able to commend the order of treatment and general style. To the other classes short stories were read, and the boys were required to reproduce them in their own language immediately afterwards. Class II did fairly well; but as regards the style of composition in the lower classes, we can only say that many boys wrote in a language so peculiarly their own as to be quite unintelligible to the examiners. We would here repeat the opinion which has been already expressed that until colloquial English is more thoroughly learned by Chinese boys in the lower classes, their written English will never be satisfactory.

History:-A special period of 150 years only was offered by Class I; Classes II and III offered outlines of longer periods. The work of Ia, Ic (Senior) and IIA was good, and that of IIIB excellent. In Ic (Junior), II and IIIa answers were generally feeble and meagre. Two boys in Ic distinguished themselves. C. H. LEE gaining full marks and C. B. HAYWARD, 96. Although no general history was offered by Class I, the examiners deemed it advisable to ask a few easy questions outside the special period scheduled. Results showed, in many cases, so slight an acquaintance with facts of primary importance outside the period, that we question whether all the time devoted to this subject is wisely