THE QUESTION OF METHOD IN NATURE-STUDY 



By MICHAEL F. GUYER 

 Professor of Zoology, University of Cincinnati 



[Editor's Note. — The article on "Organization of Nature-Study Facts" 

 in the preceding (September) issue of this journal referred in a foot-note 

 on page 170 to the article reprinted below. Owing to the fact that the 

 editor of The Review had not read Professor Guyer's paper since Decem- 

 ber, 1905, he failed to recognize that the foot-note did not adequately 

 credit the outline on pages 170 and 171 as an adaptation and application 

 of Guyer's general outline reprinted below. In deference to the letters of 

 readers who have called attention to Guyer's paper and in order to make 

 that interesting paper available for many nature-study workers who have 

 not access to the original article, it is here reprinted from the Pedagogical 

 Seminary, Vol. 12, March, 1905. For permission to reprint, the editor of 

 The Review is indebted to President G. Stanley Hall, of Clark University. 



In connection with this and the preceding paper on organization of 

 nature-study it will be interesting to re-read the article by Professor F. 

 M. McMurry, in the Educational Review, Vol. 27, pages 478-493, May, 

 1904. An abstract of this paper was published in The Nature-Study 

 Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan., 1905. Perhaps other readers can call atten- 

 tion to still earlier suggestions for organizing nature-study lessons.] 



The practical question of what material to use is the one 

 which many teachers will say presents the greatest difficulty in 

 nature-study. The writer is thoroughly convinced, however, 

 that it is not so much a question of material as it is need of a 

 practical method. Teachers who have become disheartened in 

 the matter have done so largely because in first facing the ques- 

 tion of material, they have overlooked the more fundamental one 

 of method. 



Any method, to be successful, must make the separate quali- 

 ties of a given object stand out to the perception of the child and 

 lead him to make his analysis and subsequent reconstruction in 

 an orderly manner. The problem becomes all the more intricate 

 if, as in the average city school, the teacher is dealing with large 

 classes, for then the formula for analysis must be adapted to fit 

 the weakling as well as the strong ; it must be a method of making 

 not only a particular pupil, but all, receive the successive empha- 

 sized impressions. 



In the case of animals, for example, the first questions for the 

 teacher to decide are, just what is there to see about animals? 

 What can children be led to see ? 



