2 THE NA TURE-STUD Y RE VIE W [ j: ,- JAN ., 1907 



of all educators and men of science who are now giving close atten- 

 tion to the progress of the nature-study movement. 



It will help our discussion if in advance we recognize that 

 principles of nature-study may be agreed upon before they are in 

 universal practice. Very much of the pioneer practice in nature- 

 study has been without any suggestion of principles, and helpless 

 teachers have been turned adrift with only the admonition to "teach 

 nature." The result is that there is still a deplorable amount of 

 unorganized practice in nature-study. It was to this that I referred 

 in a recent editorial note in The Nature- Study Review in which I 

 wrote that "nature-study is still far from being firmly established in 

 our school system." Let me here emphasize the explanation that 

 practice and not principles was meant, for I believe that so far as 

 nature-study appears to be firmly established locally it rests upon 

 foundation principles concerning which there is no longer any serious 

 dispute. To some consideration of these established principles we 

 now turn. 



First, because most important, we have reached agreement in 

 answer to the question, "What is nature-study V For years and 

 years this has been the center of all disagreements; but in carefully 

 reviewing all the literature, and especially the best practice of the 

 past two or three year§, I fail to find even the shadow of disagree- 

 ment concerning the working definition of nature-study. Interpret- 

 ing in my own words what I see in all the present tendencies of 

 nature-study as an educational movement, I must define nature- 

 study as follows: Nature -study is primarily the simple observational 

 study of common natural objects and processes for the sake of per- 

 sonal acquaintance with the things which appeal to human interest 

 directly. 



Now before I have completed reading this sentence I am sure 

 that some of my hearers are preparing to object that Professor Hodge 

 does not so define nature-study and that Professor Bailey has said 

 something different, — and so on through a list of contributors to 

 the nature-study discussions of the past. But reserve decision and let 

 us analyze. 



Professor Hodge has defined nature-study as: '-'Learning the 

 things in nature that are best worth knowing, to the end of doing 

 those things which make life most worth living." Read his "Nature 

 Study and Life" and talk with Professor Hodge and you will find (1) 

 that by "things best worth knowing" he means the common things 



