NATORE 
289 
THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1904. 
PROF, ARMSTRONG’S EDUCATIONAL 
CAMPAIGN. 
The Teaching of Scientific Method and other Papers 
on Education. By Henry E. Armstrong, LL.D., 
Ph.D., F.R.S. Pp. x+476. (London: Macmillan 
and Co., Ltd., 1903.) Price 6s. 
Re book reproduces the chief contributions which 
Prof. Armstrong has made to the literature of 
education from 1884 to the present time, with the 
addition of a parody by another hand of that most 
parodied of music hall lyrics, “‘ The Absent Minded 
Beggar.’’ I have been so constantly in touch with 
Prof. Armstrong, and occasionally so closely associated 
with him, that the book comes to me in no degree as 
a new work, and I have perforce read it from the point 
of view of one who regards the mode of presentation 
of the case rather than the merits of the case itself. 
Though the work is entitled ‘*‘ The Teaching of Scien- 
tific Method,”’ its scope is much wider, for it is an 
indictment of our educational system from top to 
bottom, and an indication of how education is to be 
set right in its relation to all the arts of peace and 
war. 
It appears to me that the weakness of Prof. Arm- 
strong’s book lies in the want of system and coordin- 
ation. The arrangement is probably as good as it 
could be, provided that nothing were feasible but the 
mere reprinting of twenty-three occasional addresses, 
but it is impossible not to suppose that the constant 
of almost the same words, will deter a reader who sits 
down to read the book solidly through. It would 
have .been a considerable labour, but it would have | 
given unity and plan to the book, if Prof. Armstrong 
had mixed the twenty-three outpourings, and had sub- 
jected the mixed liquid to a process of fractional 
distillation. 
Coming to the matter of the book, it is unnecessary 
in the pages of Nature to say a single word in justifi- 
cation of Prof. Armstrong’s assertion of the importance 
of science as an element in national education, and of 
the importance of teaching science well. I shall con- 
fine myself, therefore, to the question as to whether 
the method of teaching science which Prof. Armstrong 
advocates is really a way of teaching it well. On this 
question there is an apparent diversity of opinion 
among those who may be supposed to be entitled to 
express an opinion. I will assume no editorial plural 
in writing on the subject. I, as one teacher, after 
twenty years’ constant study and observation of science 
teaching in schools am of opinion that Prof. Armstrong 
is advocating what is essentially a good method, and 
though I know that this same method has been spoken 
of by distinguished people in terms of condemnation 
and ridicule, I am ready to justify my opinion. 
The objects of science teaching in schools have been 
stated again and again in all degrees of fulness and 
eloquence. They appear different to different people: 
Science gained a footing in the schools of this country, 
NO. 1787, VOL. 69] 
I think, in the hope that it would prove a bread-and- 
butter study, and would provide a body of useful in- 
formation as clearly available for practical purposes 
as arithmetic. It was an important ingredient of that 
‘* modern side ’’ education which was the outcome of a 
rebellion against the classical basis on which all 
education had,previously rested. It was accepted 
reluctantly by schoolmasters, who, too ignorant of 
science to understand its higher possibilities, regarded 
the intrusion as essentially Philistine in origin and in 
aim. 
In France science was introduced into the school 
curriculum with a totally different object. The aim 
there was to add an element of natural philosophy, to 
open the mind of the young to an appreciation of the 
grandeur of natural laws, to use science as an element 
of culture. 
My own independent critical knowledge of science 
teaching in schools does not go back more than twenty 
years, but I am prepared to maintain that twenty years 
ago the science teaching that prevailed in this country 
was in the main execrable. Good teachers there were, 
no doubt, for good teachers there always will be, in- 
dependently of all systems. But whether looked at as 
giving useful information, culture, or mental training, 
the teaching of science in my school days and after 
was in the main worthy of the contempt with which 
it was regarded by all those who had a humane interest 
in education. 
This state of things has now been altered to a degree 
which makes the change one of the most remarkable 
and gratifying educational revolutions with which I 
| am acquainted. The change has been wrought by the 
reiteration of doctrine, and the continual reappearance | 
efforts of a number of men who were sufficiently in- 
terested in science and sufficiently imbued with the 
spirit of the teacher to set to work and show that 
science could be made an invaluable mind-training 
study, and among these men I reckon Prof. Armstrong 
as a potent leader. 
Prof. Armstrong renounces the claim, often imputed 
to him, of having discovered a new method of teach- 
ing. What he has done has been to formulate a scheme 
of teaching in accordance with principles which are 
almost as old as civilisation. The aim of this scheme 
has been to free science teaching from the dogmatic 
didactic methods by which it has been dominated, and 
to substitute a system which should yield the benefits 
of the experimental method. Two things, and two 
things only, I think, are essential to Prof. Armstrong’s 
plan, first, that the pupils should perform experiments 
with their own hands, and second, that these experi- 
ments should not be the mere confirmation of some- 
thing previously learned on authority, but the means 
of eliciting something previously unknown or of 
elucidating something previously uncertain. In this 
way only, it is maintained, can pupils gain the know- 
ledge and use of scientific method. Incidentally, it is 
urged that the experimental studies should be made 
quantitative, and that a small number of problems 
should be studied thoroughly. 
I cannot imagine that this view of the way in which 
science should be taught can be seriously disputed, and 
I think it is a pity that so many of Prof. Armstrong’s 
oO 
