174 NATURE-STUDY REVIEW [6:6-Sept.,l9lO 



gree of accuracy. Unless we are seriously mistaken, the edu- 

 cational progress of the next decade will he chiefly marked by 

 the development of accurate methods of testing the results of 

 teaching. 



It is obviously in the fields of education that are chiefly con- 

 cerned with the development of skill, that such standards can 

 be most readily agreed upon and most easily applied. Next to 

 these, the fields in which a definite knowledge-outcome is de- 

 sired offer the most favorable field for the application of exact 

 tests of efficiency in teaching. In those fields in which the edu- 

 cational outcome is to be characterized in terms of ideals, tastes, 

 attitudes, and sympathies, the sitution is much more complex 

 and, at first glance, quite unfavorable to quantitative treatment. 

 And yet, even here, there is a possibility of devising tests 

 that will furnish a measure of efficiency far more satisfactory 

 than the uncertain and indefinite standards of judgment that are 

 now applied. Whatever may be the outcome of an educative 

 process, — whether it be a set of habits, or a mass of facts and 

 principles, or an ideal of method or procedure, or a taste, or an 

 attitude, — this outcome can always and must always be expressed 

 in terms of conduct, — in terms of action. When we think of 

 education as developing conduct-controls, the problem of an 

 effective test is seen in a new light. Are we seeking in our 

 science courses to develop an ideal of the scientific method of 

 procedure? If we are, it will be possible to test the efficiency of 

 our work by placing the pupil face to face with a new situation 

 and determining whether he reacts to that situation in the way 

 that we expect. Such a test was devised by Gilbert in connection 

 with the experiment described in Nature-Study Review for 

 March, 1910, and a preliminary report of which appears in the 

 Journal of Educational Psychology for June, 19 10. In fact, 

 all of the so-called "intangible" results of education lose their 

 intangible character when translated into terms of actual con- 

 duct. And is this not, in any case, the ultimate test? How 

 else is the work of teaching to be judged? The sources of 

 human motive may be hard to discover, but the outcome of 

 human motive is a very real thing. How much the processes 

 of education contribute to this outcome and how much must 

 be attributed to inherited traits and congenital variations, we 

 are unable now to say. But if, in a series of closely observed and 

 carefully controlled cases, a repeated variation in the educative 



