SCIENCE 



NEW YOEK, MAY 23, 1891. 



THE TEACHING OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' 



The title of the address which I am privileged to deliver 

 this evening has been advisedly chosen, in order to mark 

 the contrast between the teaching of what is commonly called 

 "science" and the teaching of " scientific method." It is, 

 I think, to the failure to discriminate between these that the 

 delay of which we so bitterly complain in introducing ex- 

 perimental studies into schools generally is large attributa- 

 ble. 



For years past the educational world has been witness of 

 conflicts innumerable. Its time-honored and most cherished 

 dogmas and practices have been subjected to severely search- 

 ing criticism, and it cannot be denied that they have often- 

 times emerged from the battle in a terribly mangled condi- 

 tion ; nevertheless they have hitherto manifested a marvellous 

 recuperative power. Modern subjects, especially experimental 

 science, have as yet barely obtained a foothold in our schools, 

 and their educational effect has been scarcely appreciable; 

 nay, it is even said, and probably with too much of truth, 

 that the results under our present — may I not say — want 

 of system are inferior to those obtained in the purely classi- 

 cal days of yore, when the scholars' efforts were less subdi- 

 vided, -when fewer subjects claimed their attention. The net 

 upshot of discussion simply has been that we are intensely 

 dissatisfied with our present position, and that we realize 

 that some change has to be made. What that change is, we 

 are not yet agreed. This, after all, is a very healthy state 

 to be in, and "one which necessarily must precede the con- 

 struction of a satisfactory programme of studies suited to the 

 vastly changed conditions under which the work of the world 

 has been carried on since those two potent agent*, steam and 

 electricity, have assumed sway. 



In setting our house in order, one great difficulty arises 

 from the multitude of counsellors. Every subject in turn 

 asserts its soul saving power, and puts forth its claim on a 

 portion of the school time An infinite number of sugges- 

 tions are made. Who is to arbitrate in so difficult a case ? 

 Certainly, the more I study the educational problem, the 

 more I realize the extraordinary difficulties which it presents. 

 We are not all cast in one fixed mould, and cannot all be 

 made alike. Educational rules must necessarily be made 

 infinitely elastic, and educationalsuccess can only be achieved 

 by the elastic administration of rules. 



But are those who are charged with the conduct of so diffi- 

 cult a mission in any way specially prepared for the cam- 

 paign ? Suppose at a largely attended rei^resentative meeting 

 of British teachers some one were to discourse in most elo- 

 quent terms of the beauties of the Chinese language, and 

 were to affirm in the most positive manner possible that no 

 other language offered the same opportunity of inculcating 

 lessons of the highest import, what would be the result ? 

 Few, if any, present would know a word of the language; 

 and therefore, although all might agree that they had listened 



' Paper read by Professor Henry E. Armetrong at a meeting of tlie British 

 College of Preceptors, April 8, 1891. 



to a most learned and interesting discourse, the effect would 

 be ephemeral, and the advice given would be wholly disre- 

 garded by the majority. Never having had occasion to 

 study the language, they probably would mentally set down 

 the lecturer as a doctrinaire, — as a member of that trouble- 

 some and objectionable class, the enthusiasts, who are always 

 interfering with other people's business and trying to lead 

 them to mend their ways. Some few might think it politic 

 to include Chinese in their school programme. These would 

 either purchase a "Reader," and endeavor to master the 

 subject themselves sufficiently to impress a smattering of in- 

 formation on a limited number of pupils in perhaps the 

 higher forms in their schools, or would engage a young fellow 

 fresh from the university as teacher, who had little more 

 than mastered the principles of the Chinese alphabet, but 

 was considered capable of any thing because he had taken a 

 good degree. I very much fear that the treatment which I 

 picture as accorded to my hypothetical subject, Chinese, is 

 very much the kind of treatment meted out to experimental 

 science in most schools. In the majority of cases it has been 

 included in the programme because it has become fashionable 

 and is a subject in which public examinations are held, more 

 or less under compulsion, and without real belief in its 

 worth or efficacy as an educational instrument. It is not 

 surprising, therefore, that the results have been so unsatis- 

 factory. 



Two causes appear to me to operate in retarding educa- 

 tional progress. In the first place, our schools, with scarcely 

 an exception, are controlled by our ancient universities; and 

 these, I think, are not improperly described as, in the main, 

 classical trades-unions. The majority of those who pass 

 through their courses are required only to devote their atten- 

 tion to purely literary studies, and, unless by accident, they 

 acquire no knowledge of the methods of natural science: 

 consequently, having no understanding of, they exhibit no 

 sympathy with, its aims and objects. It is a strange fact 

 that so limited and non-natural a course of training should 

 alone be spoken of conventionally as "culture," and that it 

 should count as no sin to be blind to all that is going on in 

 the world of nature around us, and to have no appreciation 

 or understanding of the changes which constitute life, — no 

 knowledge of the composition and characters of the materials 

 of the earth on which we dwell. As the entire body of 

 teachers in the more important of our schools are university 

 men, and the examples which such schools set permeate into 

 and pervade schools generally, the result of the introspective 

 system of training followed at our universities is disastrous. 

 That the effect of a change in the present university system 

 on scholastic opinion and practice would be far-reaching, 

 has been clearly realized. In proof of this. I may again cite 

 remarks made by the present head master of Rugby, for- 

 merly head master of Clifton College, which I quoted in my 

 address to the Chemical Section of the British Association at 

 Aberdeen in 1885 ; they were made at a meeting of convoca- 

 tion at Oxford a few months previously. Dr. Percival said, 

 "If twenty years ago this university had said, from this 

 time forward the element of natural science shall take their 

 place iu responsions, side by side with the elements of 



