1 66 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



that are not parts of the routine work, I have found that science teachers 

 are as easily bewildered and disconcerted by unfamiliar concepts aa 

 teachers of mathematics, and much more easily than teachers of history. 

 This may mean that I happen to be acquainted with exceptionally clever 

 teachers of history or with exceptionally stupid teachers of sciences ; but 

 it would not be fair to assume this. The general intelligence of the 

 many teachers I have in mind (as this may be judged from casual inter- 

 course in school, in committees, in general contact outside) does not 

 show a correlation to the subjects taught. 



The fact seems to be simply that the teacher of science is just as 

 likely to become petrified under suitable conditions as the teacher of 

 any other subject. So far as science teaching has gone in the past, it 

 has not yet established a universally acting dynamic principle in the 

 character or the mind of the student. Not only are new ideas met with 

 hostility, but when he is forced to handle them the science teacher does 

 not show that system in his attack which his training has putatively 

 imparted. If he does show order in analyzing a problem in his own 

 field, this may mean only that he has learned a useful formula for 

 attacking certain types of problems. The value of the "training" 

 should show itself when problems of new types are met. 



This leads to the next virtue which science is expected to develop, 

 namely, the judgment. We no doubt learn to judge by judging; but 

 I have not found science teachers, in dealing with matters outside their 

 specialties, exhibiting greater deliberation, broader vision or less pre- 

 judice than are shown by just ordinary people of "culture." On the 

 contrary, the most complacent and immovable spirits I know are among 

 teachers of science. 



It is impossible, from the data at hand, to come to any final conclu- 

 sion as to the causes of this apparent incompatibility between the 

 results of science teaching, as shown by the teachers, and the possibil- 

 ities of science teaching as claimed by these same teachers. But some 

 of the causes are near the surface and are worth noting. 



The concept science is not itself sufficiently definite, judging from 

 the senses in which the word is used. Thus, one science teacher speaks 

 of another as being "too scientific" in his teaching because the latter 

 employs many technical terms in the class room. Technical terminology 

 is here confused with " science " ; and any person of common sense can 

 tell you that it is not at all scientific to use in teaching such terms as 

 make the work of the pupil unnecessarily difficult. Another teacher 

 prides himself that he has a thorough scientific training, since he is able 

 at a moment's notice to describe the laboratory technique for any experi- 

 ment or demonstration you are likely to want ; and his familiarity with 

 this technique is the result of long and intensive laboratory experience. 

 But we forget that a laboratory helper can acquire all these details 



