Charlotte Mason was not a fan of unit study learning at all. Charlotte believed that unit studies robbed the children of the chance to make the connections, the relations as she called them, on their own. One of her underlying philosophies was that children retained best what they figured out for themselves. This is why she was so adamant that teachers not get in the way of a child’s learning. Unit studies are mostly teacher-driven, even when literature based, and the connections between concepts is made more than obvious to the student. This lumping together of everything possible related to a title would not have appealed to Miss Mason’s sense of educational philosophy, nor would it have fit in too well with her methodology.
On the other hand, much of a Charlotte Mason education is both literature based AND history driven. So, what she did to a certain extant, was to form mini-units within her outer framework of literature and history. It would have been perfectly acceptable to Charlotte if a child learned about cattle drives while reading a geography book about Texas, for example. Or to learn a great deal about the oceans while reading a sea-going book like Seabird or one of the Horatio Hornblower series. Remember, she did tie some subjects into her history, especially geography, literature and biography, but others as well. Unlike Charlotte Mason, however, so many of today’s unit study developers glean every scrap of learning out of a title that they can, or plan a study around a title so that the information can be gleaned. This sort of contrived learning was not in tune with her attitudes and philosophy. She would rather a child learn what a cattle drive was like by reading someone’s first-hand experience or narrative of one while discussing it in the context of a story or literary nonfiction than she would a child learn about cattle drives from a resource book just because one was mentioned in a text about a trip to Dodge City. Also, deriving all of one’s lessons from a single title can dampen the enthusiasm for reading that book. Remember, Charlotte was all about learning to love learning, too. Anything that sapped the enjoyment from the classroom was not tolerated very well.
The difference in the two methodologies:
Unit study – The current subject being studied is the American West. The book Cowboy Charlie is planned for this week. There is a cattle drive mentioned in the book. Therefore, this week will be spent learning all about cattle drives – what they were, where they took place, when they took place, why they took place, who was involved in them, what kind of foods were eaten by the cowboys, when did they stop, etc. The information is gleaned from resources outside the book, given to the child in small amounts each day by the teacher, and unless the teacher believes in “delight directed” study, only the information the teacher decides to give is imparted.
Charlotte Mason – The current subject being studied is the American West. The book Cowboy Charlie is planned as part of this week’s reading. After the reading, the child is asked to narrate what he knows about cattle drives and cowboys. The information is his. He knows what he knows from what he’s heard and retained (or read and retained.) If he shows an interest, he can be encouraged to do further reading and research on his own. He may even be given the same resources as the unit study student, but he takes away from them what he wants and needs to know, not what the teacher or parent has deemed appropriate and necessary for him to know. If cattle drives are considered a necessary portion of the overall history lessons, a book that goes into more depth about them than the passing mention in Cowboy Charlie will most likely be a part of his reading list, if not now, then later when he’s older. Perhaps Trail Driver by Zane Grey will be assigned during his teen years.
Personally, I combine both Charlotte’s methods and unit studies. What I try not to do is to contrive lessons – creating a lesson from a mere mention of a topic. Using our example above, Cowboy Charlie shows illustrations of campfires. A unit study planner might take this opportunity to add in lessons on fire safety, or the science of fire, or how to depict firelight in artwork. As a Charlotte Mason teacher, I’ll probably just let it go, as it plays no significant part in my plans. I’d choose Cowboy Charlie for its historical aspects, or as an introductory biography of the artist Charles Russell, which is what it is. I wouldn’t choose it for its depictions of cattle drives or campfires or the geography of the American West. I might choose it for its depictions of cowboys, especially for younger students who may have romanticized views of them, as it does show some of the realities, albeit in a gentle manner.
So, I guess my point here is that unit studies aren’t a bad thing, even if they can be too much of a good thing – that is using a book for all its worth. They can be a part of a Charlotte Mason education without compromising your CM sensibilities. Just be careful how much information you pull from each title, why you pull it out, why you read the book in the first place, and how much enjoyment is derived from the lessons.
