September 9, 1892.] 



SCIENCE. 



143 



used by the pupil in speaking or writing, or met with in reading, 

 for several years afterwards, and all of them were completely 

 separated from the other words requisite to constitute any sen- 

 tence. This was an unnatural method, and, it is needless to say, 

 an unscientific method. By exercises in composition, and also by 

 means of dictation exercises, i. e. , a careful selection from an in- 

 teresting story or history, suited to the capacity of the pupils, 

 and with just enough new words and idioms in it to ensure prog- 

 ress, orthography is taught scientifically. By this means the 

 child sees the relations of the words, understands their uses, and 

 so more easily remembers and uses them. Thus it is in the 

 teaching of science to children. Is it not true that natural and 

 physical science is even now taught in many of the schools of the 

 United States in very much the same manner as spelling was 

 wont to be taught in olden times, in a disconnected, detailed, and 

 unnatural way ? But, it may be objected that the curriculum is 

 already loaded with studies, and, therefore, there is not room for 

 all the sciences on the common-school programme. My reply is, that 

 in place of increasing the load I would actually lighten it. Requiring 

 elementary, practical, concrete, object-instruction in nature does 

 not imply an increased amount of work. The sum total does not 

 need to be greater. If demanded in the interest of health, the 

 total amount should be lessened. But the work should be nat- 

 ural; and, being more natural, it will, of course, be lighter and 

 more acceptable. The study of nature is pre-eminently that 

 which cultivates observancy, and accordingly comes first. Yet, 

 itcannot be taught without a language; and the language in this 

 country must be the English. Writing, spelling, reading, gram- 

 mar, composition, drawing, geography, and arithmetic can all be 

 taught while giving instruction in the natural and physical sci- 

 ences. In fact, the teaching of science to children implies prac- 

 tice in drawing, writing, oral composition, written composition, 

 and a certain amount of arithmetic. An afternoon's, or, better 

 still, a forenoon's ramble over the fields, up a canyon, upon the 

 side of a mountain, or along the shore of a lake or bank of a river, 

 or a visit to a good museum, will ordinarily afford abundance of 

 material and opportunity for penmanship, letter- writing, draw- 

 ing, measurement, calculation, and oral and written language 

 lessons. 



Hence, it is plain that it is not a specialist in any particular 

 branch of the sciences who is needed to teach children. The 

 teachers should be chosen with reference to their fitness for teach- 

 ing children of a certain stage of mental development. This is 

 the natural standard. It is not really necessary that the teacher 

 have a college education, or a knowledge of the advanced 

 studies. But, it is absolutely necessary that the teacher 

 be possessed of good common-sense, be able to see clearly the 

 things around him, be accurate as far as his work extends, and 

 be full of love for that work. There is a little book entitled 

 "Directions for Teaching Geology,'' by Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor 

 of geology in Harvard University, which ought to be in the hands 

 of every common-school teacher. After an experience of twenty 

 years, teaching all grades of students. Dr. Shaler expressed himself 

 as follows: "It seems to me very desirable that the first steps of 

 the child in the study of the physical world should be given by 

 teachers who give the beginnings of the other branches of learning. 

 Although it is held by some students of the problem of science- 

 teaching that the work must be done by special teachers of sci- 

 ence, I am inclined to believe that the view is a mistaken one. 

 The special teacher will have to divide the intellectual life of the 

 student, and in the infantile stages of this education it is difiicult 

 to make this division." 



As to methods of instruction in elementary science, the judi- 

 cious use of books, pictures, charts, maps, and models is proper. 

 But the instruction should be largely by open-air excursions of 

 two or three hours each, and taken twice or thrice a week. It 

 can easily be accomplished in most places throughout the greater 

 jportion of the year. Of course, in inclement weather the in- 

 struction must be given in the schoolroom. It is there the ma- 

 terial collected by the teacher and pupils in their rambles may be 

 examined and studied. The schoolroom may serve the good pur- 

 poses of a shelter, and a place for exercises in description of the 

 i(3xcursions and of the specimens gathered. It should also be used 



for the inspection and study of manufactured articles, which are, 

 of course, the products of scientific industry. These exercises 

 should be varied. Oral questioning is useful. Written descrip- 

 tions are still more useful. Drawing is of great service as an ex- 

 act form of expression ; but much care should be taken to prevent 

 it from becoming merely a mechanical exercise and thus inter- 

 fering with true inspection. This indoor work is especially useful 

 for reviews. In reviews, the memory becomps trained and 

 strengthened; and let it not be forgotten that the memory ought 

 to be trained and strengthened. Memory is an important faculty. 

 I have no sympathy with the modern tendency to despise mem- 

 orizing. I believe strongly in the cultivation of the memory. 

 What would man be without a memory ? As a matter of fact, I 

 know of nothing that hinders and cramps my teaching more than 

 the lack of a strong, full, retentive memory on the part of the 

 student. Often it is with difficulty he can recall the meaning of 

 words in his text-books. He cannot follow me because he has 

 forgotten the significance of many of the words, English as well 

 as technical, used in the lectures or explanations. For the same 

 reason, many times he omits taking notes, or else he causes delay 

 by stopping the instruction in order that whole sentences may be 

 repeated for his benefit, his memory not being strong and active 

 enough to grasp and retain more than a very few words at any 

 one time. Why should so many young people enter college at 

 the age of sixteen or seventeen with weak and leaky memories ? 

 If the question had reference to the reasoning faculty, it could be 

 satisfactorily answered, inasmuch as reason appears later than 

 memory, and has not had time for development. But, the mem- 

 ory can and should be developed in the primary and secondary 

 schools, and the study of nature is eminently adapted to this de- 

 velopment, as it is also to that of comparison. I am disposed to 

 think the high schools might do much more in this direction by 

 wisely conducted examinations upon large portions of the work. 

 I say " wisely conducted;" for I know there are examinations 

 that are not wisely conducted, and such would not produce the 

 desired result. It is not enough for a young man to tell me that 

 he knew a subject one or two years ago. If I wish to engage 

 him to do a certain kind of work in which a knowledge of that 

 subject is required, I wish to ascertain what he knows about it 

 now, and whether he can use it now. Discipline of the mind is 

 one thing, and practical knowledge is another. True education 

 must include both. A student may shine in the classroom day 

 by day; yet he may not be able to pass a good examination or 

 even a fair examination on the whole year's work. He does not 

 possess that particular kind of power which will enable him to 

 hold a year's work. This faculty should be recognized and im- 

 proved. 



With reference to the mode of instruction by frequent excur- 

 sions, that the young people may, under a competent guide, get 

 a first-hand knowledge of nature for themselves, allow me to call 

 attention to an article from the pen of Dr. J. M. Rice, which ap- 

 peared in a recent number of the Forum. In the article referred 

 to Dr. Rice sketches the work he saw done in primary schools in 

 Germany and New York during his visits to both. He commends 

 the German method by field-excursions as being scientific, and 

 condemns the American method, or that which he witnessed in 

 New York City, as being unscientific. The contrast between the 

 two systems is very forcibly brought out. Dr. Rice concludes his 

 interesting article in these words: " If life be made a burden in- 

 stead of a pleasure to the child, the blame falls upon those persons 

 who fail to place their children in the hands of individuals who 

 know how to educate them without destroying their happiness." 

 This I take to be an appeal from Dr. Rice, not to a few persons, 

 but to the American people at large, to free their children from 

 the evils of a close-confining, hot-house, mechanical system of 

 primary education. Doubtless in many instances the teachers 

 are to be pitied rather than blamed. Assuming them to be 

 qualified and reliable teachers, desirous of taking the little ones 

 out for study, the principal, if there be one, or the superinten- 

 dent, may possibly object; perhaps some members of the board 

 may object, or the children's parents may offer opposition. Un- 

 der these circumstances, what are the teachers to do? Simple- 

 stay shut up in the school-house during the finest weather, and 



