OCTOBEE 8, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



463 



contact with the laboratory work and per- 

 haps pays no particular attention to what 

 is being done in the laboratory. On the 

 other hand, the laboratory work or the dis- 

 cussions may be conducted by one who is 

 not in touch with the other two parts of 

 the instruction. That confusion and waste 

 of effort in such circumstances should 

 arise is not to be wondered at. 



LECTURE VERSUS DISCUSSION PREPARED FOR 

 IN ADVANCE 



As I have suggested before, the successful 

 features of language teaching might be 

 imitated where they are applicable. For 

 example, in Latin, we teach not merely the 

 language but, just as continuously and un- 

 remittingly, we teach the method of study- 

 ing the language. I find that more than 

 half of the students in a college class have 

 not the faintest idea how to set about 

 studying chemistry. They spend quanti- 

 ties of time, yet, for lack of a method, 

 obtain very slight results. Should we not, 

 for example, explain to them how to notice 

 the significance of each word in a law, 

 and to expand the succinct terms in which 

 it is stated ? Should we not insist on their 

 connecting each law with a set of illustra- 

 tions; enjoin them to apply each illustra- 

 tion closely to the law, word by word ; and 

 finally advise them to close the book and see 

 whether they can recall the facts that led 

 up to the law, reproduce the full meaning 

 of the terms in which it is stated, and make 

 the application to the illustrations. Do we 

 not simply assume that they will invent a 

 method of study for themselves? It was 

 years before I myself realized that I had 

 been making this assumption, and how 

 woefully wide of the truth it was. 



It is a platitude to say that no method of 

 teaching which disregards fundamental 

 properties of the human mind can possibly 

 be successful. Yet I must confess that I 



have used for yeai-s precisely such methods 

 without realizing the fact. For example, 

 the lecture places the student in a passive 

 and receptive attitude. Yet it is not the 

 reception, but the reproduction of an idea 

 that fixes it in our memory. The hearing 

 of a story makes no permanent impression. 

 It is only after we have retold the story 

 that it suddenly leaps into a permanent 

 position in our repertoire. The first hear- 

 ing of an idea produces but a faint track 

 in the brain. It is the putting together of 

 this idea, in its original setting, and also 

 along with new ideas, that converts the 

 first faint track into a traveled road. Is it 

 not one of the strong points of language 

 study, that the student must put together, 

 in an endless variety of forms, the limited 

 number of ideas he is trying to master, and 

 must do this by his own efforts? 



Again, repetition, explicit and persistent, 

 is absolutely essential to fair acquisition. 

 The lack of this in science teaching has 

 recently been emphasized by President 

 Kemsen. Yet much repetition in a lecture 

 is out of the question. It becomes tedious 

 and boresome. It is like having the same 

 pei-son introduced to us formally five or 

 six times over. We are conscious of bore- 

 dom the second time, irritation the third 

 time, rage the fourth time, and thereafter 

 settled hatred of introducer and intro- 

 duced alike whenever we hear that person's 

 name. Yet, if we had been furnished with 

 an opportunity spontaneously to recognize 

 the person the second time, we should have 

 been pleased to meet him on that occasion, 

 we should have greeted him as an acquaint- 

 ance on the third occasion, and have felt 

 the impulse of close friendship before long. 

 We can not alter human nature. In the 

 study of language we have an opportunity 

 to meet and recognize the fi-iends whose ac- 

 quaintance we first make through the dic- 

 tionary, and the subsequent encounters 



