20 MICHIGAX ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 



to my mode of thought. I found myself among strangers. True there 

 were some friends there, but they were seen as in a maze and like cap- 

 tives forbidden to converse we journeyed through a strange land. 



Our children, trained in nature's school, come to us for aid. Their in- 

 terests have been in the concrete and they have already learned much of 

 the jn'oper method of approach. How does our education affect them? 



There come to me, year by year, sixty or more freshmen for a labora- 

 tory course in biology. They have forgotten the tirst and greatest gift 

 nature ever gave them — how to observe. It is pitiful to contemphite 

 their almost helplessness when given some thing to study. Their thought 

 has been wrapped up in books — their school thoughts — and that they can 

 actually see for themselves, that their own e^es can show them truths 

 has become so strange to them that I actually have to hide books that 

 treat of the objects they are studying, they have come to lean so heavily 

 on them. It is a long task to reawaken their confidence in themselves. 

 Despite the absolute evidence of their bodily senses they will deny 

 what they see, and fortify themselves by reference to an author who 

 has perchance been led astray through like error. This is a harsh ar- 

 raignment of our educational methods, but everv teacher of nature 

 at first hand will bear me out. A method that can produce such etfects 

 as this deserves no other name than that of a crime against our children. 



It has been my custom for some years to submit certain of my classes 

 to tests of their observing powers. From a series of data not complete 

 enough to warrant entire confidence, there yet stand out certain ac- 

 cordant facts that are highly suggestive. These tests were such as 

 could be performed without apparatus and were designed to try a 

 number of faculties. I have found that pupils fail more in accuracy in 

 estimating short intervals of time than in anything else on which I have 

 experimented. The average error is 75 per cent. Ordinary, casual 

 perception comes next with an error of 53 per cent. Let us uoav turn 

 to pure memory and the difference is verv striking. In pure memory the 

 error is only 28 per cent, while that of size is 20 per cent and form only 

 13 per cent. 



It has been interesting to note the variations that occur in individ- 

 uals and to correlate these with their educational experience. The fol- 

 lowing is a typical illustration. In a class of thirty-seven students 

 eleven objects were placed upon the deck. Particular attention was 

 directed to them, and they were then lifted, one by one, placed in a 

 basket and removed from the room. The pupils were then asked to make 

 a list of them and the replies were grouped in two classes: the first of 

 those who had had one years training in a laboratory course in biology: 

 the other of those w^ho had had no such training. The difference in the 

 classes was marked. Of the first group eight out of fourteen could 

 name them all and the average number recalled v/as 10.50. Of the 

 second group the average was 9.52 and only four out of twenty-three 

 could give the entire list. The number seen and suflQciently observed 

 to recall them was as follows: Of those who had had the training in 

 observation one saw nine, fiA-e saw ten and eight saw them all. Of the 

 others; one saw but five, one seven, one eight, five saw nine, eleven saw 

 ten and only four out of the twenty-three listed all; and this difference 

 with only one year of six hours per week to overcome the results of 

 previous training. 



