Sessional_Paper_1898 — Page 176

172

spent in teaching comparatively unimportant details within the period. Whilst we think special studies in history should be encouraged, we are strongly convinced that broad general outlines should be clear in the mind before special attention is given to brief epochs in the early centuries of English History. We suggest, therefore, that boys in the highest class be required to prepare for their year's work both special and general history.

Algebra:-There is evidence of careful teaching in this subject. Two boys in Ia did excellently. While in Ic (Senior) fully three-quarters of the boys passed satisfactorily. In IIA a fair proportion of the boys gained good marks, but there were many weak papers. In IIIA there was some satisfactory work, but only three attempts were made at factors which are evidently not taught; there were also many mistakes in simple rules. IIIB is, in this subject as in so many others, in strong contrast to IIIA. They took the same paper and showed that they had been taught to work accurately. Ic (Junior) ought to have done better. IIc (Senior) have evidently not been taught factors, and the common mistakes in simple rules were very frequent. At present it would be better not to teach this class Algebra, but to let them improve their arithmetic.

Euclid: -In Ia there were two excellent papers, and two very poor indeed. The upper part of IIA and a few boys scattered up and down did very well indeed, in the small amount that they offered (Book I. 1-26). The rest did badly, making terrible confusion between the uses of and, therefore, for and because in an argument; they failed to apply I. 4 properly. In Ic (Junior), taking a shorter paper (propos. 1-15), only two boys wrote proposition 2 and only one proposition 12 correctly. No other propositions were written out well. The papers were full of bad mistakes. In IIIa only 15 boys out of 47 passed, but most of these did creditably (on propositions 1-12). The faults arising fom attempts at learning by heart are evident in the omission of important steps in an argument, and in the impossible order in which sentences are arranged. The majority of these boys do not under- stand what they try to write and the suggestion was forced upon the examiners again and again that the time of the class might be spent more profitably. In Euclid, if symbols are allowed for abbreviation care should be taken that they are thoroughly understood. In IIIB there was again evidence of much better teaching: Many propositions were correctly written out. On November 20th, within a month of the examination, the Head Master reported to us that one division of Class II could not offer Euclid as "they know nothing." As they had offered the first 15 propositions and this is supposed to be a year's work, the remark which was made in the Report of 1895, that "at present the time spent upon it (Euclid) is, in the majority of cases, wasted," is, in this particular case, partially confirmed.

General Information and Intelligence: This paper afforded a test of power of expression rather than of information in possession of the boys. Although there were some intelligent papers, the results showed a weakness amongst boys other than English in expressing themselves.

Shorthand:-We consulted an expert in regard to the special test in shorthand; he writes to us as follows:-"The writer should not have tackled dictation with his present knowledge of contractions and grammalogues; and if an examiner were inclined to be severe he would deduct marks for faulty outlines. Between each line of shorthand there should be a clear line of space; then outline does not run into outline. As a general rule there should be no speed dictation until the pupil has reached the ' reporting style '.

Shakespeare:-Class I. prepared the first two Acts of "The Merchant of Venice." The upper boys in both divisions of the class did remarkably good papers: the rest were very weak. This short portion of a play appears to be the work of one term only. We suggest that the work of a longer period should be presented for the annual examination.

French :---One boy did excellently. Several boys in Ic did very satisfactorily on an easier paper. IIc (Senior) was very weak, but they had apparently only just begun the subject.

Book-keeping Of the seven papers from IA four were correctly, though not very neatly, done. In IIA half the boys passed, though only two obtained high marks.

Latin--One boy offered Latin and did a good paper on elementary grammar and Cæsar I. 1-30. Both papers were marked by accuracy and style.

Pupil Teachers:--We examined three Pupil Teachers in ten subjects along with Class I, but their work did not compare favourably with that of the boys. All failed in Dictation and Geography, only one passed in History and in Arithmetic, but in Grammar and Composition they did fairly.

We recommend the following boys for Scholarships:

Morrison Senior: C. H. LEE.

Morrison Junior: HUNG HING KAM.

Stewart:

LO PUN FAI.

Belilios Senior:

C. H. LEE and C. B. HAYWARD.

Belilios Junior:

And prizes for special subjects according to the mark sheets.

WONG TAK KWONG.