mcmurry-armstrong] criticism OF NATURE-STUDY 23 



Murry concludes that the following propositions should hold in 

 the rejection of subject-matter: (i) Whatever cannot be shown 

 to have a plain relation to some real need of life, whether it be 

 sesthetic, ethical, or utilitarian in the narrower sense, must be 

 dropped. (2) Whatever is not reasonably within the child's com- 

 prehension, likewise. (3) Whatever is unlikely to appeal to his 

 interest ; unless it is positively demanded for the first very weighty 

 reason. (4) Whatever topics and details are so isolated or 

 irrelevant that they fail to be a part of any series or chain of 

 ideas, and therefore fail to be necessary for the appreciation of 

 any large point. This standard, however, not to apply to the 

 three R's and spelling. 



Applying these suggestions to various subjects in the schools, 

 Dr. McMurry writes as follows with special reference to nature- 

 study : 



'' In one of our best schools I was recently present while a 

 second-grade class reached the conclusion that grasshoppers 

 habitually lived in dry, sunny places, the children, when playing, 

 having seen them there. They decided that the insect went under 

 boards and rocks when it rained, and some related how they had 

 fed some captive grasshoppers apple and water. 



'' I saw a fifth grade write out a description of a dead red oak 

 leaf, the paper nearest me reading as follows : Size, 7^ inches 

 long ; 4 inches widest part ; shape, somewhat oval — widest at top ; 

 lobes, alternate, long pointed, 10 lobes on leaf; indentation, 10 

 indentations, rounded, deep, alternate; petiole, short, thick, dark 

 brown, mid-vein thinner near top of leaf ; veins, alternate, thin, 

 not many ; color, dark brown, near mid-vein. 



" What a mass of worthless matter in such instruction ! Much 

 of it so valueless that there is no pretense of reviewing it next 

 day ; it is even unnecessary for examinations. Here lies probably 

 the greatest waste in our instruction. Where there is no careful 

 selection of details, there is only an aggregation ; chaos rules there, 

 and despair is constant, because the field can never be covered. 



" The teachers are not satisfied with such haphazard work, but 

 it is difficult to bring about improvement. However, the diffi- 

 culty lies not in method, but in the choice of matter, and I desire 

 to make three recommendations in regard to the remedy. 



" In the first place, the subject-matter in those branches that 

 easilv offer mere aggregations of facts, like history, geography, 



