October !), li»03.] 



SCIENCE. 



4ti9 



struction fails. Students uever grasp the 

 idea that the apparatus and the manipula- 

 tion are simply a means to the end. On 

 the other hand, the skillful lecturer can 

 perform the same experiment, direct the 

 attention to the important phenomena, 

 reiterate the principles involved and leave 

 an impression much less confused and more 

 evenly balanced between the three parts, 

 operation, observation and conclusion. 



For grammar school pupils only such 

 record of work as will instil habits of care 

 and accuracy need be demanded. A sketch 

 (no matter how rough) will tell more than 

 pages of description. A word or two may 

 be added to the sketch bj' way of render- 

 ing obscure parts clear, but no further de- 

 scription of apparatus should be encour- 

 aged. What is seen may properly be told 

 in a simple, natural way with no attempt 

 on the teacher's part to guide the line of 

 thought. After the book is examined the 

 teacher may then properly designate the 

 non-essentials and emphasize the charac- 

 teristic changes of substance in the action 

 iinder consideration. To distinguish be- 

 tween essential and non-essential phe- 

 nomena is one of the greatest difficulties 

 experienced by the beginner. Conclusions 

 must of necessity be of the most obvious 

 kind with such elementary pupils and no 

 theory should be called for. 



In high schools, the pupils being of more 

 mature mind, the record of work should be 

 more carefully supervised. The sketch 

 should still be insisted upon and the actual 

 written description cut down to a mini- 

 mum. The observations should be given 

 in a natural way with continual caution 

 against undue attention to insignificant de- 

 tails. The phenomena illustrated by ex- 

 periments performed at this stage of the 

 pupil's chemical education are in general 

 very simple and do not require the eyes of 

 a trained observer. It may be objected 



that since one feature of chemical training 

 is to train the powers of observation, noth- 

 ing should be done to designate as insignifi- 

 cant or unimportant any observations prop- 

 erly made. This too is a question that has 

 not been settled satisfactorily to all, but 

 when a student persists in burdening the 

 mind with a lot of unimportant observa- 

 tions at the expense of the fundamental 

 principles, the desirability of eliminating 

 the non-essential is apparent. 



Training in the description of an experi- 

 ment by fii'st stating the principle involved 

 is to my mind the only proper course. 

 When once this is firmly established in the 

 mind and the object of the experiment is 

 clear, the mere recording of manipulation 

 becomes a matter of secondary considera- 

 tion. Mechanical methods of recording 

 •surely are to be avoided. 



If, however, this schematic method is 

 retained in the study of qualitative anal- 

 ysis, the reason for its elimination in ele- 

 mentary work may to some seem obscure. 

 The warmest advocates of this system of 

 notation in qualitative analysis must recog- 

 nize the marked difference in the two cases 

 when it is pointed out that in the element- 

 ary laboratory the operations are of 

 widely dissimilar nature and would de- 

 mand greater breadth of description, while 

 in qualitative analysis the operations are 

 essentially alike. 



It can be seen at once that a course in 

 chemistry such as is here proposed would 

 not be in accord with the methods of sev- 

 eral hundred text-books written for acad- 

 emies and high schools. The incompati- 

 bility would be most noticeable with those 

 consisting in whole or in part of qualitative 

 analysis. Fortunately there are but few 

 treating wholly of qualitative analysis. Of 

 the other class there is unfortunately a 

 yearly increasing number. However, the 

 introduction of qualitative analysis into 



