Friedrich Fröbel

Friedrich Fröbel (born the April 21st 1782 in Oberweißbach (Thuringe), dead on June 21st, 1852 with Marienthal) was a German pedagog.

In its main work “Menschenerziehung” (Of the education of the man) (1826), Frederic Fröbel (1782-1852) thus defines his teaching principles, which must much with the theories neohumanists:

“God, the divine one, is omnipresent: its influence controls all things… which are only by the divine principle acting in them. The divine principle with work in all things constitutes the gasoline of it even. The destination, the vocation of all things is to develop their gasoline, which is their divine nature and the divine principle in oneself, in such way that God is proclaimed and revealed by their external and transitory demonstrations. The destination, the particular vocation of the man as being gifted of feeling and reason, is to arrive at the total awakening of its gasoline, its divine nature and thus of God, his destiny and its vocation, so that they become a reality alive and clearly perceived, expressed and proclaimed in the life of the individual. The goal of education is to encourage and guide the man, to be conscious, thinking and perceiving, in manner that it becomes by its own personal choice, a pure and perfect representation of this divine interior law: education must show him the ways and the means of achieving this goal” (Fröbel, 1826, p. 2 and suiv.).

It is this teaching design which is also at the origin of the “kindergartens”, idea with the universal repercussion which remains the principal claim to fame of Fröbel. But Fröbel also applied its theories to secondary education, putting its ideas in practice in the private school which it had founded not far from Weimar, “the German general Institute of education” of Keilhau, near of Rudolstadt. Its pedagogy of the kindergarten causes impassioned discussions still today, in particular in England and in Japan. Its materials of play, “gifts” and “occupations” were popularized in the whole world at the 19th century. With the teaching equipment of Montessori, they constitute the most effective programme and most exhaustive of awakening by the play of the children from three to six years.

Childhood and adolescence - years of personal experimentation

Friedrich Wilhem August Fröbel is born on April 21st, 1782 with Oberweissbach in the principality from Schwarzbourg-Rudolstadt (Thuringe), the sixth child of Pasteur. His/her mother dies six months after her birth of the continuations of the childbirth.

Small Friedrich is delivered to itself because his/her mother-in-law ignores some (his/her father remarié himself in 1785). Fröbel will speak later about “the sinister paddle of my first years” (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 37) Abandoned to itself, the child adopts an arrogant attitude and egocentric person. His/her father regards it as a `bad subject' with the average limited intellectuals. If it obliges it to follow the religious services, it is with the variation of the others, locked up in the sacristy. Thus the Fröbel young person, by reflect on the direction of the Bible and the mysteries of nature by surveying the fields and the wood of his fatherland acquires practices of autodidact: “The unlimited taste to observe, contemplate and learn by myself will have been a constant of my life as of more the young age” (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 38). It establishes with nature a relation based on the observation and the analysis: “Memories of my youth: inexpressible rapture to contemplate the tulips, major joy which inspire to me their regular form, the astonishing provision of the six petals and three the carpelles charged ones with pollen… happiness to contemplate the delicately coloured kittens of hazel tree; pleasure of the flowers of the lime. I am filled with wonder in front of all that supposes of solicitude and love. In Oberweissbach, I dissect beans in the hope to find an explanation” (Kuntze, 1952, p. 13).

The childhood and the youth of Fröbel are marked by the absence of mother, the love of nature and the Christian faith, which will influence all its life: its theories on education rest on a Christianity without dogmatism and its ludic pedagogy of the kindergarten insists at the same time on the communion of the adults and the children in the play and on the intrinsic teaching function of materials or the natural objects of which little by little the structures and the laws appear. Its life during, our pedagog will be impassioned for the natural science and in particular for mineralogy and crystallography.

After having attended the elementary school of Oberweissbach, it is collected by his uncle Hoffmann, manager with Stadtilm where it attends the elementary school. Its schooling takes end in 1796 with its confirmation, experiment which marks it and strengthens its religious feeling. Fröbel will not thus have received any higher formation. His/her father, who persists in finding it not very intelligent, prefers indeed that he learns a trade. He thus undertakes a training of land-surveyor near a forester but gives up it at the end of two years (1799). In spite of not very flattering appreciations on its work (“completely insufficient”) (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 53), Fröbel withdraws this experiment the taste of mathematics and natural science. It is registered into 1799 with the courses of natural science of the University of Iéna, but it stops its studies during the six-month period of summer of 1801 for financial reasons; it is necessary for him to turn over close to his very sick father to assist it in its load until its in February 1802 death.

Years of training and voyages: Pestalozzi and the “sphere”

After the painful years of childhood and adolescence, time came for Fröbel to choose a profession. Indeed, he was by no means a “teacher born” (Spranger) and it is by-paths that he will discover his major vocation. In 1807, it evoked this period in these terms: “I wanted to live in nature, in the fields, the meadows and wood… I wanted to join together in my person all the attributes which I separately observed at those which lived in the countryside (in the fields, wood and the meadows): peasants, managers, hunters, loggers, land-surveyors… with the image of the ideal peasant that I had forged myself when I had about fifteen years” (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 56 and following). Its studies stopped at the University of Iéna had reinforced an early feeling of the nature which was expressed already in its interest for land surveying. Besides in 1862, Fröbel becomes land-surveyor (in charge of the behavior of the forest land register) with the office of the land goods, of the forests and of said to Baunach, close to Bamberg then with Bamberg even. At this point in time he discovers the work of Schelling, in particular “Von der Weltseele” (Of the heart of the world) (1798) and “Bruno oder über das natürliche und göttliche Prinzip der Dinge” (Bruno or of the divine and natural principle of the things) (1802), and its first philosophical design of nature acquires. The writings of Novalis (Hardenberg), published in 1802, and works it of Arndt “Germanen und Europa” (the German ones and Europe) inculcate in Fröbel the two essential notions of idealistic subjectivity (Novalis) and the historicity of the German nation (Arndt).

In 1803, Fröbel obtains by an advertisement that it made appear in “Allgemeinen Anzeiger der Deutschen” the post of private secretary of the field of Large-Miltzow close to Neubrandenburg. It joined to its application an architectural diagram (the plan of a manor) because it decided to become architect. After two last years with Large-Miltzow (1804-1805), Fröbel goes to Francfort-sur-le-Main to work in this profession, but the experiment shows a failure. In June 1805, it is engaged by the “model school” of Frankfurt which applies the teaching principles of Pestalozzi. Immediately, Fröbel has the feeling to have found its way. Like he writes it with his Christophe brother: “I say it frankly to you, it is astonishing at which point I me direction well in my new work… It is as if I were for a long time teaching and that I would have been born for this profession; it seems to me that I never wished to make another thing” (Lange 1862 I, 1, p. 533). Thanks to the influence of the patrician family of von Holzhausen of Frankfurt, with which it is in contact, Fröbel goes to the autumn 1806 in Yverdon, to Switzerland, to familiarize itself with the teaching methods of Pestalozzi, the voyage being paid by its patrons. Become tutor of the three children of Caroline von Holzhausen, Fröbel will reside with them of 1808 to 1810 at Yverdon where he looks further into his knowledge of the theories of Pestalozzi all while occupying himself with zeal of his pupils. At the same time, it uses the influence that his Christophe brother exert in the capacity as Pasteur on the school system of their area of origin to try to establish the ideas of Pestalozzi on primary school education in the principality of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. But this attempt will fail. It is not less one episode determining in the life and the work of Fröbel because it is on this occasion that it writes its first outstanding writing: “Kurze Darstellung Pestalozzis Grundsätze der Erziehung und of Unterrichtes. (Nach Pestalozzi selbst)” (Short talk of the principles of education and training of Pestalozzi, according to Pestalozzi itself) (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 154-213).

This important test shows how much Fröbel was influenced by Pestalozzi. Its life during, with each stage of its work, the pedagogy of Fröbel remains dependant on the ideas of Pestalozzi on elementary education, ideas that it will interpret and develop in an independent way and well with him.

The teaching objective of Pestalozzi is to improve the living conditions of the “lower classes” by stimulating by education the “forces”, them (elements), the “nature” of each child and in particular of most underprivileged. It is by its “clean activity” to take again the expression of Fichte that the man reaches autonomy, it is by itself that it must deploy his “forces”, all its forces, like wants it the néo-humanistic theory of education (Wilhelm von Humboldt). This development of the forces is made in a catégorielle way, each particular faculty being associated with contents which must be fully comparable in order to set up in the conscience the fundamental notions and categories of knowledge and comprehension of reality. In other words, the elementary education of Pestalozzi conceived as the structuring of the forces (element) of the individual represents also the development of categories because the force (interior) of the individual develops in confrontation with the context (external). This catégoriel development methodically is encouraged and guided by education. For Pestalozzi, the best means of allowing this catégoriel development is to exert a methodical influence on the child. Pestalozzi distinguishes in each human being, i.e. in each child three great forces acting: perceptive” and “cognitive” force the “(linguisticocognitives aptitudes), the force of the “skills” (control of the body, aptitudes manual) and moral force the “ or nun” (social and moral behavior). These three fundamental forces constitute “the nature” of the man. In fact the “elementary” categories cannot develop in an optimal way without external intervention; one needs for it the positive stimulation exempted by education, the framing, the “method”, and this stimulation of the development of the forces present in the child must intervene very early. In 1805, Pestalozzi had worked out in its “Book of the mothers” a program of catégorielle education which proposes, still timidly, to mobilize the maternal love to initiate the newborn and the preschool child to the structure of its environment and thus to wake up and encourage the fundamental forces, the elements of the human existence present in him. This “Book of the mothers” of Pestalozzi, bases study that Fröbel devotes to him in 1809, will remain an essential point of reference of all the work of Fröbel, including in its game theory educational and its work of 1844 “Mutter und Koselieder” (songs of the mother), which refers explicitly to the Book of the mothers of Pestalozzi and proposes an elementary program of education centered on the scenes of the rural life seen by the eyes of a child.

When Fröbel arrives at Yverdon in 1808, the Pestalozzi Institute is at the top of its international reputation. But in 1809-1810, this reputation is darkened little by little by increasing competition enters the two colleagues of the Master, Niederer and Schmid. Attracted in spite of him in polemic where it took party for Schmid (against Niederer and Pestalozzi), Fröbel does not have of another exit to leave Yverdon with the children of which it with the load with the autumn of 1810. Fröbel will continue its activity of tutor in Frankfurt until June 1811, date on which it settles in Göttingen to resume the studies of abandoned natural science in Iéna. Fröbel draws up a disappointing assessment of the last years in Frankfurt and Yverdon. Recognizing that it does not have really personal ideas yet on education, it estimates however that them theories of Pestalozzi on elementary education must be thorough and established on bases more solid. Moreover, necessary knowledge is lacking to him. Fröbel then undertakes ambitious studies to acquire the bases necessary to sound action of pedagog and specialized teacher. It is given for task to study “the disciplines philosophical, anthropology, physiology, ethics and theoretical pedagogy” for to use in the teaching of “the knowledge of the language (maternal), the history, of geography and of the method”. It justifies in these terms this vast program: “There exists certainly one empirical approach of the education which is based on the accuracy of the feeling and the intuition of things, as if that came naturally; but even then, scientific culture acquired by the study makes it possible to go much further” (Lange 1862 I, 1, p. 536). And he writes of Göttingen, with sound brother Christophe whom it launched out in the study of the Eastern languages, chemistry, the physiquechimy, mathematics, which it intends to approach the astronomy and certain branches of medicine and that it follows already courses of sciences and languages traditional”. (Halfter 1931, p. 312). In fact, this encyclopedic program will not be long in being brought back to more modest proportions, initially in Göttingen where it gives up the study of the languages then in Berlin where Fröbel will limit to study sciences of nature: chemistry, mineralogy, physics and geography. If Fröbel left Frankfurt is not only to acquire a formation professional but also for more personal reasons. Its relations with Caroline von Holzhausen, its faithful protective and mother of its pupils had become so intense that Fröbel tested the need to take field. It is difficult to say which were really theirs relations, but one can think that between September 1810 and June 1811 they undoubtedly went beyond the simple “communion of the hearts”. The fact that thereafter Fröbel held Caroline constantly informed (via third) of the evolution of its ideas on education prove that they had remained very close. In any case, this relation will have been for Fröbel one experiment very testing, as confirm it between 1811 and 1816 of the notations of its newspaper. In 1831, still, Fröbel spoke about this episode as of the “most dangerous combat that I had with to carry out of my life… a combat where the heart and the heart, without any intellectual recourse, are delivered to themselves… Just as the life proceeds of death, safety resides in the renouncement… This fight was per moments terrible and mortal at the point to bring me at the edge of the destruction moral” (Gumich 1936, p. 60 and 55). Whatever could be the reasons for the conflict of June 1811, it is in any case main reason of the departure of Fröbel for Göttingen where it will provide the foundations of its theory of education, the philosophy of the “sphere” which proceeds at the same time of the science and of metaphysics. Fröbel had already discovered in Frankfurt the work of Fichte but it is especially allured by Schilling and its speculative philosophy of the identity and objective idealism. One thus cannot not to really speak about philosophy transcendantale in connection with the philosophy of the sphere of Fröbel. Indeed, Fröbel does not leave the postulate of the reason like source of the categories and of significances following the example Kant or of Fichte; for him on the contrary, human conscience and the man are only part of divine reality, of creation. God is the unit which appears in the contrasted spectacle of the world. Reality has beautiful contradictory being, it always tends to the unit. God, the creator, is located beyond the world while remaining within his creation (pantheism). Each thing, each living being is a creature of God determined by a force divine (its telos), whose multiple demonstrations do nothing but reveal the subjacent unit: The “sphere” (i.e. the constant, universally alive and creative principle and with new resting in oneself) is the fundamental law of the Universe, of the physical world like psychic world (the world of the body and the world of the heart), of the moral world like world intellectual, of the world of the feelings like world of the thought (Gumlich, 1936, p. 62). “The spherical one is the manifestation of diversity in the unit and the unit in diversity; the spherical one is the manifestation of the diversity which rests in the unit and which develops some, and of return of any diversity to the unit; the spherical one is the representation of the origin and emergence of any diversity starting from the unit… So that an object develops its spherical nature, it must to tend to express, and express indeed, its being in oneself and by oneself in its unit, in its characteristic and in its diversity… It is in particular the destiny of the man who of to develop, to cultivate, express initially its own spherical nature, then nature to be it spherical in general… The law of spherical is the fundamental law of all true education human” (Zimmermann, 1914, p. 150 and following). But if inanimate objects and other beings alive are satisfied to live in accordance with the law of spherical such as it appears in them, only the man is aware of this law. It is it which enables him to apprehend its possibilities existential in conceptual terms and to act according to this knowledge. The human being which seizes by the thought its existential possibilities practice the introspection, i.e. it interiorizes these possibilities to apprehend them by the mechanism of the thought. Since it acts in accordance with its intuition and with the law of spherical, it expresses in its behavior this relation which it interiorized and harmonizes thus dimensions “interior” and “external” of its life. But the man should not be satisfied to reflect and act according to his reflection, it him is also necessary to apprehend external reality, i.e. to include/understand it and interiorize it for to apprehend in its fundamental structure and its logic. “To interiorize what is external, to exteriorize what is interior, in both cases to realize the unit; such is the general external form in which the destiny of the man is expressed” (Fröbel, 1826, p. 60). For Fröbel, education and teaching have as a function to encourage and to frame this dialectical process of construction of the categories: external reality must be apprehended in its internal structure and its laws, but so that the mechanism of this comprehension is perceived at the same time; in the same way, the “interior reality” of the man that constitute the reserve of its potential forces must be developed and exteriorized. In other words, this formation process of the categories gathers the various aspects of reality and coordinates them in their specific structure while highlighting the investigatory force that each man conceal in oneself: the mathematical structure of nature returns to a priori anthropological of mathematical thought. Both are conditioned mutually and are unthinkable one without the other. For Fröbel nature is thus the “identical one reversed” of the spirit (of the human conscience). Given that the “spirit” can be apprehended only in nature, in the demonstrations by which it is expressed. The “spherism” of Fröbel is thus at the same time a scientific theory and doctrines of the education which founds the relationship between subjective knowledge and the scientific object, all in stating the function of the teaching activity: education aims at external reality by the analysis to release the structures and to reveal from them at the same time the structuring capacity of the human spirit. This catégorielle education, which is at the same time elementary education with the direction where hears Pestalozzi, is the objective assigned by Fröbel as well with secondary education as with the plays educational intended for the whole small. Because for him, education not more than the play, does not imply the projective autorepresentation of the individual nor the random exploration of contents of objects and of topics remaining foreign. What interests Fröbel, it is always the mediation, integration, reciprocal revelation of ego and the object, the child and the toy, the pupil and the matter taught, in order to apprehend the bond which founds them reciprocally: no the subject without object, not of external reality if the man is not there to structure it. But if Fröbel could outline in Göttingen its philosophy of the sphere (see Hoffman/Wächter, 1986, p. 309-381), there was no time to him to write the great treaty that it wished to devote to him. Certain declarations which clarify its thought on this subject find in six written opuscules with Keilhau between 1820 and 1823, in particular in the second, published in 1821 under the title “Durchgreifende, dem deutschen Charakter erschöpfend genügende Erziehung STI das Grund-une Quellbedürfnis of the deutschen Volkes” (a total education answering fully with the needs for the gothic script, such is the requirement first and fundamental of the people German) (Zimmermann, 1914, p. 147-175). But it is in main work already mentioned Fröbel “Of the education of the man” (1826) whom one finds exposed in detail the concepts fundamental of its philosophy of the sphere that are the “interior” and “outside”. Concept of “sphere” also reflects the desire of Fröbel to overcome its interior conflict in connection with Caroline von Holshausen and her interest for crystallography: he sees in the scientific law which explain the formation of all the crystals starting from a form the first proof and the illustration by sciences of the nature of its doctrines of the sphere, of its theory of the education and of its design and its philosophy of the existence. In the years 1830 Fröbel gives up the concept of “law of spherical”, or law of “interior” and “outside” and of their necessary integration, with the profit of the law of “unification of life”. In its later works on the educational plays, he prefers speech of “law of mediation”; but under different words, Fröbel always refers to the fundamental process of idealistic knowledge of the world by the individual discovering in him the man power which create it world, without calling in question for as much the religious bases and metaphysics of the dogma Christian concerning creation. During these years of voyages, Fröbel goes in November 1812 to Berlin for there to follow the teaching of professor Christian Samuel Weiss (1780-1856), the father of crystallography. It consequently assists occasion with the courses of Fichte. When the war bursts in March 1813, Fröbel enlists like volunteer in the fusiliers of Lützower and takes part in engagements against Napoleon until May 1814. It is for this period that it meets two pupils of Schleiermacher, students in theology, who will become later his/her colleagues: Wilhelm Middendorff (1793-1853) and Heinrich Langethal (1792-1879). Fröbel takes part in the battles of Large-Görschen and Lützen in May 1813. In June 1814, he asks to be demobilized and becomes in August of the same year attending of professor Weiss the mineralogical Institute of the University of Berlin. In December 1813, his/her Christophe brother had died of the cholera. It is to honor memory of this brother, to which it was very close, that Fröbel gives up in April 1816 his station academic in order to devote itself to the education of its three nephews, initially in the house paternal of Griesheim then as from 1817 in Keilhau. It gives to the private school which it founded it name of “German general Institute of education”.

The “German general Institute of education” Of Keilhau: a spherical model of education

Heading “With our German people”, the first proclamation written by Fröbel with Keilhau in 1820 begin with these words: “It is of an unknown place of a hidden small valley of our motherland that addresses to you a small firm Germans made of some families. This small firm feels plain by many bonds: they are fathers, mothers, parents, brothers, sisters, linked by the friendship and blood ties… The same love gathers them, love of humanity, of the education and of the illustration of all that is human, of humanity in the man” (Zimmermann, 1914, p. 123). The establishment of Keilhau privileges a family design of education. Teaching proceeds there in an environment of family without distinction between the older pupils and more young people. The same atmosphere of confidence and “intimacy” impregnates the two school and family circles where develops and saw the human being becoming about it. The teaching methods applied to the children of Keilhau want to be at the same time total and scientific. They want to be total because they associate the development cognitive, intellectual, physical education and manual and the social aspects and monk, seeking to integrate according to the wish of Pestalozzi the elementary forces of the “head, the “hand” and the “heart” for to ensure a complete education. In Keilhau, there is not unilateral transmission of the knowledge of the Master with the pupil (pupils being able to do themselves office of teachers). In fact, it is about a company of total education of the individual, of a teaching “moral and monk” where each pupil affectivement is always affectivement integrated in a group, who it that is to say the circle of its school-fellows or that of the big family of Keilhau. Moreover, this teaching does not stop with the formation and to the intellectual awakening of the pupil, it also relates to physical faculties since it comprises aspects of hands-on training. The program of studies includes/understands periods of physical exercise, plays educational and tasks of construction. relations apprehended in cognitive and rational terms are represented in the texts by one drawing which constitutes a model. In addition, the pupils of Keilhau have the possibility of working with firm attached to the establishment. Indeed, this one is not simply a private boarding school: it shelters also a small farm whose products meet the material needs most immediate for big family of Keilhau. But the educational practice of Keilhau does not want to be only total, i.e. embracing all the aspects and all faculties of the human being. She also wants to be scientist and faithful to the principle of the spherical unit enters “nature” and the “spirit”, between “science” and “education”. For Fröbel, education and science have the same root. The framework emotional family encourages certainly the child to seize reality and to release the structures of them, but only in a one indirect way and in a quite precise context. Secondary education must thus to be a systematic company of awakening which exceeds the framework of family education for to begin again and deepen in a rational way and by a continuous teaching effort exploration and structure of the things analyzes it. It is in this direction that Fröbel can define its practice teaching like a reproduction deliberated on the family model. The development of the human being passes by the practice of sciences. Science and education are determined mutually and are transmitted by teaching. But no one cannot to have a scientific behavior if it did not understand that the human conscience is the point of meet and of elucidation mutual insurance companies of ego and outside world. It is to act scientifically that to explore its own universe, its daily practice, the mass of the observable phenomena in the alive world, to discover the subjacent laws and structures of them. It is obvious that the structure of a thing, its law, its general information or its “interiority” to take again the expression of Fröbel, can be understood that by the human conscience (the spirit). By recognizing the general information of one object, I include/understand at the same time as the man is the being, the only being able to apprehend this “general information”. Science as a knowledge of the structure of the objects (external) is too scientific exploration of our capacity of knowledge. This is why Fröbel refuses to dissociate science and education. Any educated man has a scientific step and science is it vector of education. For Fröbel, the educational teaching of Keilhau is thus the means of associating science and elementary education. That implies that teaching is also an education embracing all the aspects (forces) of the individual and calling at the same time upon its self-awareness. It is in that the practice of Keilhau proposes a “spherical” model of education since the teaching exempted with the pupil emanates there, in last analysis, of the things: the pupil recognizes “generic” general information (the law and the spirit) of the things and thus takes conscience of itself in so much that to be “spiritual” with the structuring capacity (see Heiland 1993). The principal work of Fröbel, “the education of the man”, written of 1823 to 1825 with Keilhau and published in 1826, thus does not propose only one philosophy of education and one theory of the development; it is also a school treaty of pedagogy where Fröbel exposes its theory “educational teaching”. In this work, as the six opuscules written with Keilhau, Fröbel compares the bond between education and science to acquisition by the man of self-awareness, definite like a relation between outside and the interior, an overlap dialectical of the interior and outside and their “necessary unification in the life”. Into same time, the author also describes a whole series of “course founders” designed to develop them elementary forces of the individual and of which it underlines the basic principle: educational teaching is governed by the law of the things. It is necessary that the pupil establishes a dialectical relation with the object of lesson. Teaching helps the pupil to include/understand the structure of the object by directing its reflection and by giving him indications to progress. In this manner the pupil becomes aware of itself in the measurement even where he learns how to include/understand the object. Language teaching, by example, by no means relates to the language considered as something of outside: it is one education of the individual to help it to become itself. Through the language, the pupils discover their general information, their laws, and also appear with themselves as creative beings of language. For Fröbel, the language is thus always an instrument of mediation, “outside” in so much that it indicates reality and “interior” like testifying to the intellectual productivity and to linguistic potential of creation. In the same way, Fröbel does not see in mathematics one accumulation of problems and operations, but a “general information” which one cannot apprehend that if it is admitted that the man is the only being able to penetrate and to structure “mathematically” reality to release some from the significant reports/ratios. Total, the given training with Keilhau is thus before very cognitive, founded on analysis, even if she does not neglect the psycho-emotional or pragmatic and manual aspects. It who interests Fröbel, it is not to simply prepare the children with the professional life or of their to exempt a teaching centered on lived of the pupil, but to bring them little by little to to discover structures which remain strongly enracinées in the emotional functions and représentationnelles. Family design of the life with Keilhau, which finds a prolongation in the project educational, the accent puts on the close relation between the lived experiment and knowledge between practical and the theory. It is what gives to the establishment a marked character of hearth of rural teaching. In 1818, Fröbel had married Henriette Wilhelmine Hoffmeister, girl of a member of The Council of war of Berlin. His/her collaborators Middendorff and Langethal being also married and his/her brother Christian having come to live in Keilhau with its family, environment thus created and the excellent one reputation of the establishment will make it possible Fröbel to advance its project, not without to be involved in debt considerably. In November 1825, the establishment is still flourishing and counts 57 pupils but already the decline starts and in 1829, the institution is at the edge of the bankruptcy with only five pupils. This evolution is indissociable of the policy followed by Metternich as from 1815. The nationalist and democratic aspirations encounter in Germany a counter-current conservative (Holy Alliance, congress of Karlsbad, prohibition of fraternities and “persecution of demagogs” after 1819"). This new policy does not save the institution of Keilhau, of which liberal reputation and nationalist are worth to him to be narrowly supervised by the Prussian police force. Fröbel itself will have to undergo a interrogation with Rudolstadt. In spite of the favorable conclusions, them police reports, the public rumor very quickly will make of Keilhau a “nest of demagogs”. parents withdraw their children of the boarding school. Fröbel then tries to create in Helba, in the close duchy from Saxony-Meiningen a “institution of popular education” to which was to be attached one “establishment of care for orphan children from 3 to 7 years. In its enthusiasm, it benefits from it to outline a whole educational system in several stages; “establishment of care” (precursor of the kindergartens) one passes to the “institution of popular education” (equivalent of the elementary school) whose clearly stated objectives are to associate the preparation with work and comprehension of the alive world, the following stage being that of the “general institute of education German” of Keilhau (equivalent of the traditional college), on the one hand, and, other, of a kind of school secondary practices (a “training center with German art and the German trades” or “school polytechnique"). Unfortunately, nothing concrete will leave this theoretical scaffolding and closing of Keilhau will be avoided of accuracy only thanks to Johannes Barop (1802-1878) which takes direction of the establishment in 1829. From the literary point of view, its stay with Keilhau (1817-1831) remains the most fertile period life of Fröbel. At this point in time it writes six proclamations for the school of Keilhau entitled respectively: “Our German people have” (1820), “a total education which answering fully with the needs for the gothic script, such is the requirement first and fundamental populate German” (1821), “Principle, goal and interior life of the general Institute of education German of Keilhau, close to Rudolstadt” (1821) “Of the general Institute of education German of Keilhau” (1822), “Of German education in general and the general Institute of education German of Keilhau in particular” (1822) and “News of the general Institute of education German of Keilhau” (1823). These booklets offer at the same time a talk of the theoretical bases of teaching exempted in Keilhau (philosophy of the sphere) and a description of the various courses, thus associating the philosophy of teaching, school pedagogy and a reflection on the programs school. In some of these booklets, in particular the first and the fourth, Fröbel expose in details its project of national teaching system which takes up the governing ideas of Fichte, but without placing itself from the nationalist point of view. In “education of the written man” in 1826, Fröbel is unaware of this program completely and is satisfied to describe the practice teaching of Keilhau while referring essentially to its philosophy of the sphere. That is worth also for its weekly review “Wochenschrift: Die Erziehenden Familien” (families teachers), where it describes at the same time the family life with Keilhau and some of the taught courses (elementary geography and theory of space). If one adds to this production the detailed projects for the institution of popular education of Helba and the abundant correspondence which it maintains with this subject with the authorities of Meiningen, one notes that Fröbel has during this period one common productivity not very. Feeling like a failure the decline of Keilhau and inaboutissement project of Helba, Fröbel then decides to go to exert its teaching talents elsewhere. By the intermediary of the family von Holzhausen - it goes to Francfort-sur-le-Main in May 1831 - it becomes acquainted with Switzerland Xaver Schnyder, of Wartensee which invites it to come to open an establishment of private education in Switzerland.

The Swiss period - popular education and training of the Masters

The Institute of education of Wartensee opens its doors in August 1831; it will be a externat because formulate boarding school did not appear viable. In 1833 the establishment will be transferred to Willisau. Protesting, Fröbel is in hillock with the open hostility of the catholic mediums but also of disciples of Pestalozzi (Niederer and Fellenberg). To expose to the public its teaching theories, it publishes in 1833 its “Principles of the education of the man”, written in fact in 1830 (Lange, 1862 I, 1, p. 428-456). Learning that the canton of Bern plans to create an orphanage for the poor, Fröbel submits four distinct projects (Geppert 1976, p. 235-276) which, just like them programmes of studies of Wartensee and Willisau, show that Fröbel remains influenced by the idea which was to govern the creation of the institution of popular education of Helba. Even if it is always a question of cultivating all energies of the human being, the principle dominating is from now on that of the “creative action”. The morning is devoted to teaching and the afternoon with the practical activities (agricultural work and craft industry). Unfortunately, this project of educational establishment for the poor will remain dead letter. Thanks to its guards within the cantonal Council of Bern, Fröbel is seen entrusting training of four future teachers (apprentices teachers) and direction of a course of formation advanced for teachers in April 1834. This contract will be renewed in 1835. One misses precise documents on this double experiment but what one knows watch that for Fröbel the training of the Masters must comprise three shutters: mainstream education, initiation with the didactic methods and pedagogy. In 1834, Fröbel learned that the cantonal Government of Bern planned to entrust to him direction of the orphanage of Burgdorf and the elementary school which was attached there. He sees the occasion there to apply the central part of her project for Helba, the “institution of education popular”. In a letter with the Bernese adviser Stähli, gone back to March 1834, Fröbel considers creation of such an institution in connection with the orphanage of Burgdorf and the establishment of education for the poor, like with a teacher training school teachers and a university popular: in other words, it is again about a complete system of establishments of education who would have as a center the “institution of popular education” privileging “the creative action” and associating teaching and the life, the theory and the practice. Unfortunately this new project will not succeed either. But Fröbel becomes indeed director of the orphanage of Burgdorf and of its elementary school in the middle of 1835. In fact, this school will open its doors only in May 1836, whereas Fröbel sets out again for Germany with his sick wife. The study plans of the elementary school of Burgdorf were written between 1837 and 1838, i.e. they are hand of Langethal, successor of Fröbel to the direction of the school (and of the orphanage). Three classes are envisaged, which must accommodate the older children of 4 respectively at 6 years, from 6 to 8 years and 8 to 10 years. If the lesson of classes 2 and 3 is largely in conformity with the theses stated in “education of the man”, the program of class 1 made play the base of all the teaching activity. Thus the transition with the phase is carried out following of the life of Fröbel, which will concentrate in priority on the education of the young children by play (see Lange 1862 I, 1, p. 479-507, 508-520).

Last years - “gifts”, “kindergartens”, “songs of the mother”

At the end of 1835, Fröbel compiles a document with the revealing title, “Erneuung of Lebens fordert das Jahr 1836” (the year 1836 requires a revival of the life), which begin with these words: “It is advertisement and the proclamation of a new spring of the life and the humanity which resounds so clearly and so extremely with my ear by all the demonstrations of my own life and the life of the others. It is you, revival and renovation of any life, which speak so actively and so clearly with my spirit with through any thing and in any thing in me and around of me. It is the moment awaited so much by humanity and that one promises to him since so a long time as being the golden age” (Lange 1863, I, 2, p. 499). This golden age, it will be that of the “healthy” become again family, and soon “holy” family. In the relationship between parents and children and brothers and sisters, the family will find her health because a better climate will be established: that of the joint play. Scalded by the failure of the project of Helba, the putting into sleep of Keilhau and the mitigated results obtained in Switzerland, Fröbel seems to have given up the great ideas presented in “education of the man”. Placing from now on all its hopes in the family, it works out a model of associative organization temporarily freed of any official control. He invents materials of play to improve the teaching climate with center of the family (middle-class) and it actively encourages the creation of parental associations of which the members could stimulate themselves mutually by being transmitted their experiment as regards play. As for the kindergartens, they by no means constitute the key of the thought of Fröbel in last years of its life but well rather a consequence which it had not wished in the beginning. Its dream, it was to transform the family to make the focal point of education of it be it human, to see applying its methods of “spherical” education as of early childhood for to allow the advent of a new “spring of humanity”. This “spherical” education young people and preschool childs becomes possible thanks to the materials of play worked out by Fröbel. It is this program which will give birth thereafter to the institution of the kindergarten where professional teachers (kindergarten mistress) deal with the young children by doing them to play. But that means that the discoveries by the play which in the idea of Fröbel, at least with the origin, were to fit in family setting, from now on are transferred in another context and that one of the essential points of its original theory of education by the play is thus lost. When Fröbel returns to Germany in 1836, it pays already in its unquestionable luggage materials of play, which it will call of the “gifts”. In 1837, it opens in Bad Blankenburg, in Thuringe, a “establishment to meet the needs for activity of childhood and youth”, which constitute a true factory of toys. They is there that it manufactures its first `gifts', six small made balls of wool bits to the colors of the spectrum and a whole of spheres, cubes and of wood cylinders. A third `gifts' is presented in the form of a cube made up of eight cubes assembled. Fröbel also imagines to manufacture books to be cut out and teaching equipments with the use of the schools, for example a cube of car-training of the language or one cubic space (mathematics). Each face of this “speaking” cube carries a label providing one information on the cube as a mathematical volume, which also returns to different forms of the speech. But Fröbel will give up this idea because this type of material found only one use very restricted in the schools. It is nevertheless about a stage important in its game theory, because it highlights the articulation necessary between school pedagogy and the pedagogy of the kindergarten: just as the schoolboy familiarizes itself with the information registered on the faces of the cube by handling it, the play activity of the child of age pre-school, by the means of the “gifts” and the “occupations”, i.e. by the active participation and the building sets and assembly, clarifies the structure, the laws and the nature of objects in their relationships to the subjectivity of the child. The car-training thus occupies always a dominating place in these new materials of play of Fröbel. Through the play, it “gift” reveals with the child his properties and its structure. But “gifts” and “occupations” for preschool childs of Fröbel do not bring back themselves to educational materials in oneself; indeed, the element of car-training is supplemented by plays in which the adults take part, helping the child who plays or who builds their suggestions and their explanations. Educational plays of Fröbel thus correspond well to the “spherical” model: it is a question of training the child either by “science” but by the means of an active contact with the elementary forms which put in light and symbolize the “general information” of the objects in question. In March 1838, Fröbel associates with its establishment to meet the needs for activity for the childhood and of youth - that he had initially wanted to call “the self-educated institution” - one “training institute of guides of children” which opens in June 1839. Its Henriette wife Wilhelmine had died in May of the same year. June 28th, 1840, the “German kindergarten general” was inaugurated with the town hall of Bad Blankenburg within the framework of the festivities with memory of Gutenberg. In 1848, Fröbel leaves Keilhau where it resided again since 1844 for to open in Bad Liebenstein a “institution for the realization of the universal vital unit by formation développementale and teacher of the man”. It was about a kindergarten associated with a boarding school for the formation with flowers stand children. In May 1850, Fröbel settled in a castle of Marienthal close to Schweina: it is there that it remarie in June 1851 with Luise Levin, and that he dies on June 21st of the following year. Fröbel had been filled with enthusiasm for the revolution of March 1848 of which he hoped, beyond sound purely political impact, which it would contribute to popularize its kindergartens. It is in this optics which it organized in August 1848 a congress of teachers of the elementary school with Rudolstadt to discuss the teaching bonds between the kindergarten and the elementary school and the place materials of play in the school system. The participants in the meeting adopted a resolution asking the National Assembly of Frankfurt to generalize the practice of the kindergartens within the framework of the unified German educational system. The failure of the revolution of 1848 removed with Fröbel any hope to make succeed its reform of pre-school teaching and to transform them “schools for small children” and “nurseries” in teaching institution or kindergartens. In August 1851, the anxious government of Prussia of the reports/ratios which Fröbel with the mediums maintained free-thinkers and owing to the fact that the religion was approached in its establishments apart from all dogmatism and of any orthodoxy decided to prohibit the kindergartens on the whole of sound territory. Fröbel popularized multiple ways its game theory but no talk left any systematic. Its first texts on the play and the “gifts”, which go back to 1837, appeared in “Soontagsblatt” in 1838 and 1840. This “Sunday sheet” was the second publication weekly magazine produced by Fröbel after “the educational families” of 1826. In 1838, Fröbel devote two opuscules to the first two “gifts” of its invention. In 1843, it publishes them “New and reports on the German kindergarten” and 1844, it presents its ideas on the education of the small children in “Mutter-und Koselieder” (Songs of the mother) and in one booklet devoted to its third “gift”. In 1848, Middendorff writes, with the collaboration of Fröbel, a report/ratio entitled “a present need, kindergartens, base of the unification of the education of the people”, for the Parliament of Frankfurt. In 1850, the third appears weekly magazine published by Fröbel: “The weekly magazine of Friedrich Fröbel, unifying newspaper for all friends of education”. In 1851 and 1852, it makes appear its last weekly sheet, entitled “Re-examined periodic on the efforts of Friedrich Fröbel in favor of an instruction for development and training of the man in the realization of the universal vital unit”. In 1851, Fröbel publishes in the form of booklet a version widened of its article on the third “gift” published in the “Sonntagsblatt” in 1838. It will be its last important publication. The international stature of Fröbel rests on the fact that its kindergarten, centers teaching for children from 3 to 6 years, dissociates other establishments resolutely pre-school of its time which, either was simple nurseries, or exempted to the children one secondary education. Fröbel on the contrary intends to develop the various categories of faculties of the child by the play, so as to allow him to exert its own mode of perception of the things and to satisfy the requirement of elementary education at the same time. The original idea of Fröbel: awakening of very the young children by the means of educational plays in family setting, is confronted after 1840 with the social requirement of an assumption of responsibility day laborer of young children in reception facilities external with the hearth. Thus the kindergarten, conceived at the beginning by Fröbel as a window where the mothers could see applying concretely its ideas on the educational plays became an institution where the play was organized in manner systematic. With the first collaborators, generally of male sex, which had to popularize the idea of the play in family setting succeed of the kindergarten mistresses who are organizing of plays professional, formed by Fröbel itself at the time of one duration training courses of six months. Kindergartens of the time of Fröbel, including that which it had founded in Blankenburg, comprised three axes of activity. They were centered on the play with the “gifts” and “occupations”. At side, there were the “plays of movement”: mimées race, dance, rounds and counting rhymes, where it group children develops forms of movement without the assistance of material of play. The third center activity was the culture of the small gardens, which made it possible to the young children to assist with development of the plants, to see them growing and flowering and to include/understand how care attentive allow them to better open out. Thus the young child discovered in the mirror of nature the spectacle of its own growth. However, the activities of the kindergarten make a dominating place with the materials: objects as simple as balls, a ball, cubes, sticks. Fröbel breaks up it system of “toys” in materials of various forms (solid, surfaces, lines and points), of which it described the relations by separating the four kinds of materials (analyzes) then by recombining them (synthesis). On the basis of the unit (of the ball) it proceeds by the description of materials more and more clearly structured and distinct to lead to the pearls, “points” which return to the structures spherical. All that to highlight cosmos and creation by construction, in order to to allow the child to acquire by his own action, an intuitive and perceptive knowledge of elementary structures of reality. Fröbel attached a great importance to the material objects, that it exploit, in particular in its “gifts 3 to 6” which it called of the “boxes of construction”. third gift is a batch of 8 cubes, the fourth a cube divided into 8 bricks, the fifth a cube divided into 21 cubes, and the sixth a cube made up of 18 bricks. Combination of these elements allows to obtain an almost infinite variety of forms that Fröbel named “forms of the life” (the shapes of the alive world), “forms of the beauty” and “forms of knowledge” (groupings mathematics). In 1844, the last major work of Fröbel appears, the “Songs of the mother” where it exposes its teaching project for the infants and the children from 1 to 2 years still too young to be accommodated with the kindergarten. In this work, Fröbel remains with more close to the experiment daily of the child, whom it restores in the form of scenes (illustrated boards), of sets of fingers and counting rhymes. The lived daily one of the child is represented under physical shape and immediately perceptible of the set of fingers or looked on the illustrations. The mother plays with its fingers and the child must reproduce his gestures. This book falls under the line of the “Book of the mother” of Pestalozzi, but Fröbel goes beyond the cognitive and diagrammatic method of this one. driving principle is for him the maternal love. The mother expresses this love by the play. At the origin, it small child is a being closed again on itself. It is as its forces (its driving apparatus, its directions, its intelligence) start to develop that he learns how to know his environment, to differentiate it and to structure it. Little by little, thanks to the experiment which it thus makes of the outside world, it oneself true of the child structure and is different. The set of fingers known as of “pigeon”, for example, illustrates the separation, the distance and the return, which return to the categories of the unit and the opposition. The illustration shows a child who escapes from the arms of his mother then runs again towards it. One sees there also pigeon where the pigeons enter and leave and the diagram of the set of fingers (hands alternatively opened and closed). The image of pigeon as the movement of the fingers obviously echo the double desire of the child: émanciper of his/her mother and to turn over close to it. In the same way, the image of the nests of starlings and titmouses, those of the house and the church (the house of God), echo the fundamental topic of the demolished and found unit. The counting rhyme and the legend of the illustration are explicit comments of this same topic. Text of the counting rhyme: “When I open my pigeon/the pigeons fly away/they fly away in the field vert/où they like themselves so much. /Mais they return to the house to rest/Alors I close again my small pigeon”. And it legend is the following one: “The child has feelings/which he wants to show/As the pigeon which flies away/the children like to leave out of on their premises. /Mais like the pigeon, they return to the house. /L' newborn is not long in turning the glance towards its maison/où one deals with lui/où he can braid a multicoloured garland/with the things that it found. /Ces separate things that it found/can be gathered by the account. /Ainsi life finds its tonality”. (Lange 1866, p. 21).

The influence of Fröbel

Of died of Fröbel in June 1852, one could think that the work of its life showed a failure. The prohibition of the kindergartens in Prussia resulted initially in to prevent diffusion of the educational plays of Fröbel in the remainder of Germany. If these teaching methods ended up being essential in the whole world, one owes it on the whole with the action of Bertha von Marenholtz-Bülov (1810-1893) which - just like Diesterweg - bound friendship with Fröbel in the last years of its life and was made after its death the propagandist of his theories on the gardens children in the form of conferences and of exposures in the principal countries of Europe: Large Brittany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy. In the Netherlands and in Switzerland in particular, one attend the formation of a Fröbel movement which determines the rise of the kindergartens fröbéliens. In England is born an autonomous movement fröbélien national, “Fröbel Society”, which went to become thereafter the “National Fröbel Union”, animated by Johann and Bertha Corrodes, Adele von Portugal, Emilie Michaelis and Eleonore Heewart; the company published school handbooks on plays of Fröbel and created training centres of kindergarten mistresses. In the United States diffusion of the ideas of Fröbel was ensured by Elisabeth Peabody, Mathilde Kriege and Maria Kraus- Boelte. In the Eighties and Nineties the Fröbel movement of North America will contribute to the introduction of the kindergartens to Japan. Principal pupil of Marenholtz-Bülow, Henriette Schrader-Breymann (1827-1899) founded in 1873 the Pestalozzi-Fröbel House of Berlin where, taking as a starting point the theories of these two pedagogs, it developed its own pedagogy of the kindergarten: she played a big role in diffusion of the kindergartens in the Scandinavian countries. In the same way, German the Fröbel movement largely contributed in second half of the 19th century to the institutional development of pre-school education in Poland, in Bulgaria, in Bohemia, in Hungary and Russia, but also in Spain and in Portugal, as recent historical studies show it. The international success met by the teaching program of the kindergartens of Fröbel is explained by the need more and more strongly felt for a teaching assumption of responsibility of the preschool childs resulting from industrialization: the concepts of guard of children or teaching on the school model did not correspond any more to the spirit of time. “Human education” elementary by the play which Fröbel proposed, implementing functions which obviously mobilized all the forces of the child, met the needs for the company better. Its pedagogy of the kindergarten associated the socio-teaching aspect of the reception and elementary education by the play, thus preparing the child at the later stage of schooling without him to impose excessive intellectual efforts. But the program of the kindergartens of Fröbel does not remain less indebted about it with the néo-humanistic theories: its ideal of teacher is to form human beings rather than to manufacture “useful” citizens. This design of the first education based on the philosophy of the sphere was to know major transformations within the movement fröbélien in second half of the 19th century. Because if Marenholtz-Bülow contributed by its action to save the kindergartens of Fröbel of the lapse of memory, she also interpreted them in polytechnico-functional and philosophico-cultural terms to adapt them to the spirit of the industrial era. Thus the kindergarten became in fact integral part of the school system, based on the socio-economic reproduction and legitimation. Marenholtz-Bülow was however perfectly with the fact of the bases of the pedagogy of Fröbel (the philosophy of the sphere) but it sufficiently did not hold account of it. The new design of the awakening by the play worked out by Schrader-Breymann in the years 1880 starting from the theories of Fröbel and the movement fröbélien of the beginning of this century directed towards the psychology of the development and the teaching reform completely disregarded these theoretical base of the kindergarten. From now on, the activities of gardening, the plays of movement, the materials of play, imagined by Fröbel become means with the service of the objective which consists of the establishment of the relations of the world of the life and the daily practice, for example the relationships to the didactic category of the “object of the month” of Schrader-Breymann (cf Heiland 1982 and Heiland 1992). Nowadays, one continues to associate in the whole world, the institution of the kindergarten in the name of his creator, but it was subject to various influences and, since the collapse of the Fröbel movement in Germany, at least since 1945, it is more about an establishment of teaching awakening and pre-school education with objectives definitely directed towards the group psychology and social pedagogy. The institution thus is not controlled any more by the pedagogy of the kindergarten originally conceived by Fröbel. It does not remain about it less than its methods of elementary education within the framework of the kindergarten, founded on the play, remain with the honor in pre-school education, where still today his materials of play are used, in particular “boxes of construction” (" gifts” 3 to 6). The constructive handling of these simple materials allows the concentration on the object and the acquisition of a diversified experiment of the properties of the things, by joint activities of construction and creation of forms which also support the social training and thus fulfill the requirement of “unification” of the life formulated by Fröbel (Heiland 1989, p. 91 and following and 128 and following).

Bibliographies

Heiland, H. 1972. Literatur und Trends in der Fröbelforschung. Weinheim. Beltz.
Heiland, H. 1990. Bibliography Friedrich Fröbel. Hildesheim. Olms.

Primary sources (editions of the writings of Fröbel)

Fröbel, F. 1826. Die Menschenerziehung. Keilhau-Leipzig. Wienbrack.
Geppert, L. 1976. Friedrich Fröbels Wirken für den Kanton Bern. Bern Munich, Francke.
Gumlich, B. 1936. Friedrich Fröbel. Brief year die Frauen in Keilhau. Weimar. Böhlhaus Nachfolger.
Hoffmann, E. /Wächter, R. 1986. Friedrich Fröbel. Ausgewählte Schriften. Briefe und Dokumente über Keilhau. Stuttgart. Klett-Cotta.
Lange, W. 1862. Friedrich Fröbels gesammelte pädagogische Schriften. Erste Abteilung: Friedrich Fröbel in seiner Erziehung als Mensch und Pädagoge. Bd.1: Aus Fröbels Leben a erstem Streben. Autobiography und kleinere Schriften. Berlin. Enslin.
Lange, W. 1863. Friedrich Fröbels gesammelte pädagogische Schriften. Erste Abteilung: Friedrich Fröbel in seiner Erziehung als Mensch und Pädagoge. Bd.2: Ideen Friedrich Fröbels über die Menschenerziehung und Aufsätze verschiedenen Inhalts. Berlin. Enslin.
Lange, W. 1866. Friedrich Fröbel. Mutter- und Koselieder. Berlin. Enslin.
Zimmermann, H. 1914. Fröbels kleinere Schriften zur Pädagogik. Leipzig. Koehler.

Secondary sources

Halfter, F. 1931. Friedrich Fröbel. Der Werdegang eines Menschheiterziehers. Halle/S. Niemeyer.
Heiland, H. 1982. Fröbel und die Nachwelt. Studien zur Wirkungsgeschichte Friedrich Fröbels. Bad Heilbrunn. Klinkhardt.
Heiland, H. 1989. Die Pädagogik Friedrich Fröbels. Hildesheim. Olms.
Heiland, H. 1992. Fröbelbewegung und Fröbelforschung. Hildesheim. Olms.
Heiland, H. 1993. Die Schulpädagogik Friedrich Fröbels. Hildesheim. Olms.
Kuntze, M.A. 1952. Friedrich Fröbel. Center Weg und Werk center. 2nd ED. Heidelberg. Which U. Meyer.

Resource

The text is drawn from Prospects: quarterly review of compared education (Paris, UNESCO: International office of education), vol. XXIII, n° 3 September 4th, th and th - December 1993, p. 481-499. ©UNESCO: International office of education, 2000

Random links: