34 NATURE STUDY REVIEW [10;1— Jan., 1914 



on precisely what they had been taught or had learned. In the second 

 place, an endeavor was made to find out which of the two methods 

 gave the better results when the children were tested on new 

 material. 



The answer to the first of these two questions was not the same 

 in all of the five schools tested. In three of them, two of the 

 three boys' schools and one of the two girls' schools, the conclusion 

 was unambiguously in favor of the deductive and memoriten 

 method. This was the case with the younger and less proficient 

 boys and girls. . . In two classes, the oldest class of boys and the 

 oldest class of girls who did the work, the inductive method 

 was just as successful as the 'deductive' even for the piupose of 

 exact reproduction immediately afterward. . . On the whole, 

 the tests of deferred reproduction gave the same comparative 

 results as those of immediate reproduction. The importance of 

 this consideration in testing school methods where exact reproduc- 

 tion is required is obvious. 



The answer to the second of the two main issues was the same 

 in all of the five schools tested. The children who were taught 

 'inductively' did better work than those taught 'deductively' in 

 every case when they were required to apply themselves to new 

 material. 



