642 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 852 



foundly, nor against emphasis upon special 

 lines of research in different universities, 

 but is an argument against permitting that 

 special research to dominate courses that 

 presumably are for general education in 

 botany. As Schleiden in 1849 organized 

 the general field of botany as an 

 inductive science, we again need for gen- 

 eral students a presentation of the funda- 

 mentals of the science as a whole. 



There are many other factors that have 

 to do with the eiSciency of the product of 

 our botanical teaching. We need more 

 students who in their latter college years 

 have definite purposes in mind — as teach- 

 ing, research, practise of forestry, agricul- 

 ture, etc. Possibly our teaching ought to 

 enable them to discover purposes that will 

 absorb them as do other college interests. 



More fundamental, however, is the fact 

 that we have been too content to assume 

 without sufficient data, and to dictate re- 

 garding the nature of the needs of general 

 instruction in our subject rather than to 

 make the same sort of investigation in the 

 field of teaching that we should make in 

 our botanical investigation. If we can 

 devise methods of making a scientific study 

 of botanical education, we can improve our 

 student-product. 



0. W. Caldwell 



University of Chicago 



IIL METHODS OP BOTANICAL TEACHING 



As a past master in the art of cooking 

 botanical hares. Dr. Bessey has spent most 

 of his time in elaborating the recipe. To 

 me, however, the problem seems peculiarly 

 one of making sure of getting the hare and 

 then of keeping it long enough to cook it 

 properly. As I see the problem, it seems 

 almost imperative that the hare should be 

 caught in the high school. The chief diffi- 

 culty in our getting material for turning 

 into young botanists lies at this point. 



High-school students, and especially the 

 boys, are not attracted to botany; one 

 might say they are not attracted by the 

 kind of botany offered. More than that, 

 and this may be the crux of the whole 

 question, we fail signally to enlighten the 

 parents of the boy as to the real meaning 

 and place of botany. Botany will not at- 

 tract the attention of the high-school boy 

 unless it meets every-day conditions — un- 

 less it puts him in touch with his every-day 

 environment in a way that is sympathetic 

 as well as illuminating. Moreover, it is 

 perhaps of equal importance to bring the 

 public to understand what a fundamental 

 place the knowledge of plants has in every- 

 day life, and how important a part of edu- 

 cation it is in consequence. 



So far as the high school is concerned, 

 we have the situation entirely in our own 

 hands. Few of us can teach anything but 

 what we have been taught, nor can most of 

 us teach in any way but the one by which 

 we have been taught. If you will look over 

 the high schools of your state you will see 

 that the kind of botany you are teaching is 

 the kind of botany that is being taught in 

 your high schools. It seems to me that 

 few botanists realize this fact. It really 

 means that we are actually teaching high- 

 school botany to our beginners, for this is 

 inevitably the botany that they will carry 

 into the high schools. When we appreciate 

 this fact thoroughly, we shall change our 

 elementary teaching. When we do change 

 it in a way to attract the sympathy of our 

 students, then the problem of catching the 

 hare, or at least of knowing the paths that 

 he will follow, will be solved. 



The next most advantageous point for 

 catching botanical hares is upon entrance 

 to college. This last year, in the Univer- 

 sity of Minnesota, the College of Arts grad- 

 uated 265 bachelors — most of them maids. 

 There were 195 of the latter and only 70 



