HOW NATURE STUDY SHOULD BE TAUGHT II 



All our most progressive teachers agree that Elementary 

 Science, or Nature Study, should have a place on the pro- 

 gramme of every graded and ungraded school of the land. 



Oh, the force of that little word, " or " ! Have 

 we two things, or have we one thing under two 

 names ? 



Surely, we need not delve long amid the books 

 and periodicals before we are ready to extend a 

 sympathetic hand to Professor Surface, when he 

 says: 



However, were we forced to define the term, we should 

 say that Nature Study is a subject in which the teaching is 

 for the purpose of developing certain mental faculties, such 

 as observation, comparison, reflection, reasoning, judgment, 

 memory, intellect, and even the conscience, and in which 

 the material used to secure this development consists of the 

 objects and phenomena of Nature. Many persons think they 

 have tritely defined and disposed of the matter in saying : 

 "Nature Study is the study of Nature." If this be true, 

 how does it differ from object lessons in which natural ob- 

 jects form the basis of work ? If identical, why introduce 

 the new synonyms and consequently confusing term ? Or 

 is it equivalent to elementary science ? If so, why not call 

 it science work, or elementary science ? Or again, is it some 

 branch of science or natural history, such as entomology, 

 botany, or ornithology, as we must infer from the writings 

 and teachings of some specialists, who have been recently 

 devoting more or less time to something they call Nature 

 Study ? 



Let US get outside of the circle of professional 



