April 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



645 



crammed for quiz or examination, it is 

 downright pernicious; hence the formal 

 record should be reduced to a minimum, 

 and the real emphasis laid upon first-hand 

 contact with live plants, correct and thor- 

 ough observation, and independent rea- 

 soning. 



Again, as botanists familiar with an 

 enormous amount of detail, we try to make 

 the college course in botany cover just as 

 many things as possible. One can admit 

 that it should do this in so far as it can, 

 and still realize that it can do this in only 

 a small degree. Nearly every course, and 

 every text-book without exception, contains 

 several times as much matter as the stu- 

 dent can assimilate. Indeed, if we remem- 

 ber that we ourselves learn little except by 

 experience and experiment, we shall see 

 that this must apply much more forcibly 

 to beginners in botany. For this reason I 

 do not believe in text-books, or in lectures 

 in any general course whatsoever; I would 

 have none of them. This no longer seems 

 to be a mere opinion, but the logical con- 

 clusion from actual and definite experi- 

 ments in teaching botany. Listening to 

 talks about plants can not lead to real 

 learning in any sense of the word, and 

 reading about them is in some respects 

 worse rather than better, so far as the be- 

 ginner is concerned. 



I would replace text-book and lecture 

 wholly by first-hand contact with plants. 

 I would do away with all set quizzes and 

 examinations, and make the student face 

 the test of his work just as often as he faces 

 the work itself. Moreover, even by this 

 method, students can learn little by single 

 contact. To take up a plant or a function 

 or a structure once, and then to leave it, 

 not only wastes time, but it also fixes an 

 imfortunate habit. A tandem arrange- 

 ment of materials and courses can never 

 give the beginner real understanding. 



Every course should telescope the one be- 

 fore it, touching the major points again 

 and from different angles, broadening and 

 deepening the student's knowledge upon a 

 sure foundation, not upon the mere as- 

 sumption that he recalls or understands 

 anything that he has had. 



To some teachers the universal remedy 

 for lack of knowledge or understanding on 

 the part of the student is what is called the 

 intensive course. The latter has certain 

 apparent advantages. One covers more 

 ground, without question, and the student's 

 handling of the siibject matter seems a 

 little more certain. The real test of an 

 intensive course, however, can be made 

 only by unexpected quizzes at intervals of 

 a month or two after the course has been 

 completed. Any one who applies such a 

 test to an intensive course will need no 

 further argument in regard to it. One 

 who has applied such a test can not feel 

 like giving any more time to discussing its 

 value. 



I wish to emphasize the point Dr. Bessey 

 has made as to the need of using young 

 botanists just as early as possible. We are 

 now trying out a plan by which sopho- 

 mores, who plan to specialize in the subject, 

 are put in charge of small groups of fresh- 

 men in greenhouse work. The plan during 

 the first year has proved much more suc- 

 cessful than we anticipated, and it will be 

 extended just as rapidly as possible. It 

 has been a splendid thing for the sopho- 

 mores, and it has not proved fatal to the 

 freshmen. 



I can not close without pleading that we 

 make the teaching of botany a matter of 

 experiment. We should be ecologists who 

 study the student,* the method, the matter 

 and the results, both as to knowledge and 

 to training, in an exact, quantitative man- 

 ner. If we do this, we shall get rid of our 

 loose opinions that for the beginner in bot- 



