Makch 18, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



251 



placed by a " group method " in wMcli each 

 pupil followed a line of investigation for him- 

 self. The results of the three years' experi- 

 ment he states in the following terms : " and 

 as the course continued, the method seemed to 

 them (the students) increasingly desirable and 

 successful." It seems pertinent to enquire 

 how this was determined. Would it not be 

 possible to present the evidence in favor of 

 this type of work in a more concrete way ? In 

 fact, if such an investigation is to be a real 

 contribution to the science of science teaching, 

 must the evidence not be presented in a more 

 concrete way? 



It is not the aim of the present article to 

 question the value of the article mentioned. 

 It is its ambitious title that challenges criti- 

 cism. The average science teacher, even the 

 university teacher, is not yet aware of the 

 fact that the science of science teaching must 

 proceed in exactly the same way that other 

 sciences have proceeded. The science teacher 

 must awake to his pedagogical problems, these 

 problems must be clearly defined and we must 

 proceed to their solution by the patient ac- 

 cumulation of facts, formulation of tentative 

 hypotheses, discovery of additional facts fre- 

 quently by experimental methods, and on the 

 basis of such facts we must reason to the cor- 

 rect solution of the particular problem. To 

 get at the desired facts methods must be de- 

 vised for the evaluation of processes, for meas- 

 urement of results and these results must be 

 capable of accurate mathematical expression. 

 Imagine a chemist who is investigating the 

 problem of the economic production of some 

 industrial product presenting his results to a 

 scientific body with the statement that " the 

 method seemed to them (the workmen) in- 

 creasingly desirable and successful" and hav- 

 ing back of that statement no facts which he 

 could present, no data to convince his audi- 

 ence. I am not criticizing Mr. MacArthur's 

 statement. To make even such an indefinite 

 statement is a valuable contribution at present 

 to the methodology of our science instruction, 

 but it shows the pitifully small progress that 

 has been made in the science of science teach- 

 ing. Until the science teachers of the coun- 



try realize that pedagogy is a science, that the 

 problems of science teaching are clear and 

 definite and must be solved as all science 

 problems have been solved, we can make little 

 progress in our science instruction. 

 ' Mr. MacArthur would make the chief aim 

 of science instruction the development of cre- 

 ative thought or the ability to think scientific- 

 ally, and this not only in the graduate school 

 but in the elementary school. 



It is equally important that the beginnings of a 

 seience be taught by the scientific method as that 

 graduate work be so carried on. Per the early 

 years in smy science should be given largely to 

 discovery and original research, as are the early 

 years of childhood. Thinking and first-hand con- 

 tact would better come early, else they may never 

 come. 



Personally I heartily endorse this state- 

 ment. The discovery of the importance of the 

 scientific method of thinking and its applica- 

 tion to the problems of life is one of the great 

 if not the greatest contribution of science to 

 the life of mankind and it is the greatest con- 

 tribution that science teaching can make to 

 the life of the individual. Tet in a class of 

 thirty-eight principals and superintendents 

 this last summer to whom was submitted a list 

 of aims of the elementary science of the high 

 school with the request that they number them 

 in order of importance, this matter of train- 

 ing students in the scientific method of think- 

 ing was placed nine in the list of ten. This 

 indicates — ^much additional data is required 

 to prove it — what I believe is the general im- 

 pression among the executive ofiicers of the 

 secondary schools that training in scientific 

 thinking is a relatively unimportant thing in 

 science instruction. Indeed science instruction 

 is not deemed a matter of great importance. 

 ■Less than half the high schools of Illinois 

 (48.5 per cent.) require any science for grad- 

 uation. In 18.8 per cent, of them the require- 

 ment is satisfied with one half year of physiol- 

 ogy- 



■ Is it not high time that the science teachers 

 of the country be organized into a national 

 association 



