HOW NATURE STUDY SHOULD BE TAUGHT 9 



the next, nothing but " elementary science." 

 There are chapters on astronomy, meteorology, 

 physics, but no nature study, except in the run- 

 ning titles at the top of the pages. What is the 

 trouble with this excellent guide in elementary 

 science? Has the author misnamed it, or does 

 " elementary science " mean exactly the same as 

 nature study ? 



I am forced to that belief, and having become 

 grounded thus far in that faith, I take up the next 

 book at hand, one by that master teacher and 

 student of nature study, Professor L. H. Bailey, 

 of Cornell, and read what shatters that conclusion. 

 He says: 



What is Nature Study ? It is seeing the thing which one 

 looks at, and the drawing the proper conclusions from what 

 one sees. Nature Study is not the study of science, as of 

 botany, entomology, geology, and the like. 



Diverse and antagonistic opinions of the same 

 thing. Which of these excellent teachers is right ? 



I take up Wilson's " Nature Study in Elemen- 

 tary Schools," and find such expressions as: 



Can I teach this subject without scientific training ? This 

 course does not presuppose special training . . . only 

 an earnest effort to become better acquainted with the famil- 

 iar, yet, to most of us, unknown face of Nature. 



, V 



