Apeil 30, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



709 



fact, some of them told me so in later years. The 

 experience was, however, very useful to me, for 

 I learned a great deal from it. 



" Now science is recognized; we have laboratories 

 everywhere and laboratory training is regarded as 

 indispensable. It ig therefore fitting to ask: 

 What are we doing with our facilities? What 

 results are we obtaining? When the battle was 

 on, men lost their heads — men must lose their 

 heads in order to fight. We thought that if only 

 we could get laboratories, the problems of educa- 

 tion would be solved. Is this true? 



" Pedagogical problems are hard to solve — it is 

 very difficult to get sound conclusions. How can 

 we tell whether the scientific training is more 

 effective than that of the older type? This is a 

 problem that can not be solved by sitting down 

 and thinking about it; it can be solved only by 

 research and experiment. I do not myself know 

 whether scientific training as now conducted is 

 producing the results hoped for. Yet I am con- 

 vinced that scientific training, when properly con- 

 ducted, may be of the greatest value as an educa- 

 tional force. This is quite a different thing from 

 saying that that particular thing now known as 

 science training is of great value. It all depends 

 upon how it is done. 



" Personally, I have been guilty of all tne sins 

 possible for a teacher of science. I have been 

 experimenting to find out how to teach chem- 

 istry; and it is the most difficult experiment I 

 have ever tried. My own experience in school was 

 very instructive to me, for my own education was 

 most unsatisfactory — in fact, i never was edu- 

 cated. My first experience with chemistry was 

 gained in a course of lectures one hour a week 

 by one of the greatest chemists of this country. 

 Professor Woleott Gibbs. Yet from this course I 

 learned nothing. My second experience came 

 when I had taken up the study of medicine. The 

 teacher knew little chemistry, and I was asked to 

 assist him in preparing the experiments for his 

 lectures. He had a large practise, and left me 

 alone to prepare experiments that I had never 

 seen. I am almost ashamed to confess what hap- 

 pened that year — there were explosions and fires 

 and bungling beyond words. I had little or no 

 guidance. 



" In my first course the instruction had been 

 ' theoretical ' ; in the second I had the ' prac- 

 tical ' galore ; I therefore thought I was an ex- 

 perienced chemist and could go on and take an 

 advanced course. It was a sad awakening when 



I found that I knew practically nothing of the 

 subject. 



" But to return to our theme : Are we doing the 

 best that is possible with what we now have? 

 Do the results obtained justify the equipment 

 and time devoted to scientific study? I am not 

 qualified to answer these questions for the schools ; 

 but speaking for the colleges, I may say that, in 

 my opinion, the results are frequently quite un- 

 satisfactory. The reason is that we have not yet 

 learned how to deal with the subject. It is not 

 hard to teach chemists chemistry, but it is very 

 hard to teach beginners something that is worth 

 while about chemistry in one year. What can be 

 expected of a one-year course? Have you ever 

 seen students who obtained an intelligent knowl- 

 edge of any subject in one year? We can not 

 expect anything of great value in that limited 

 time. If getting knowledge of a subject is the 

 purpose, we can not expect much of even the best 

 teachers. But the important point is: Are we 

 doing the best we can under the circumstances? 



" There are two points in which, it seems to me, 

 we might do better — two defects that might be 

 remedied. One defect is that the student is not 

 subject to enough supervision in his laboratory 

 work. He is very much in the condition in which 

 I found myself when turned loose in the labora- 

 tory to prepare experiments I had never seen. 

 He is turned loose with a book, and then left 

 alone. This is not conducive to scientific work. 

 School authorities do not realize the need of 

 enough teachers for the sciences. The head 

 teacher generally expounds the subject and leaves 

 the laboratory work to inexperienced assistants. 

 It is too much work for the professor to have to 

 spend four or five hours a day in the laboratory 

 with the students. If we could get teachers with 

 interest in their subject and in their students, 

 it would solve the problem; but in science as in 

 other subjects, we are not going to find these 

 often. Unless we can find out how to produce 

 good teachers, we shall fail to get the best results. 



" The second important defect in the present 

 teaching of chemistry in college is the absence of 

 repetition. There are too many fleeting impres- 

 sions. There is a little about a great number of 

 things, as oxygen, hydrogen, chlorine, nitrogen, 

 phosphorus — each being treated as something new 

 with no reminders. In language there is much 

 repetition; each new lesson continually connects 

 with past work. Yet it is only by repetition that 

 we learn. We do not learn a game by being told 



