crustacean, having in mind, no doubt, a pie with its upper and lower crust and the filling between. The teacher decided it was a mollusk, because it had a shell.

Next came a demand for laboratories with improved facilities and a reasonable comprehension of the possibilities of science teaching. This rendered the old-style teacher useless and incapable of filling the position of teacher of science. His place has been supplied in part by the young university graduate, trained in university methods of laboratory research, but whose inclinations and training rank him rather as a scientist than as a teacher. He is inclined to teach the subject rather than to teach the pupil. His eyes are fixed upon the recent discoveries in science rather than upon the discussions of educational methods. He is likely to be found at the meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is very commendable, if he did not also habitually neglect the meetings of the National Educational Association.

The result has not been altogether satisfactory. There is a feeling, more or less prevalent, that the claims of science have not been fully justified. This finds expression in occasional articles in educational journals; in the recent great gain in the history and language courses. over science in high schools; and in the refusal of colleges and universities generally to demand knowledge of science as a requirement for admission to college.

I can but feel that there is some ground for this coolness toward scientific subjects. My own experience would lead me to say that there may be some reason for the position that universities assume. I have recently had occasion to teach two classes a day in physics for three successive years. One was a class of high-school graduates, all of whom had studied physics. The other class had not studied physics. The two classes did identical work in the laboratory. For three successive years the tabulated records of the accuracy of data obtained in the laboratory showed that the class which had never before studied physics exceeded the accuracy of the high-school graduates in the proportion of about 7 to 3. It was a case peculiarly favorable for comparison, and I feel sure that the comparison is indicative of an actual condition in those classes.

The only explanation that I can suggest is that the teaching of the high-school graduates had been conducted under the influence of improper ideals; that the teachers were physicists rather than teachers; that, in other words, they needed to study educational philosophy, and to get a rational knowledge of the content of the subject.

Educational philosophy has a particular problem to solve. It seeks first of all to determine the laws of thought. It is a necessary assumption in all our attempts at education that, within certain limits, human minds are alike. It would seem that every teacher ought to know as clearly as possible the way in which the human mind acts.

Educational philosophy seeks also to determine the way in which the mind grows. The teacher usually works upon the young and immature mind for the purpose of enabling it to reach a final maturity greater than it would without such training. No teacher who stops to think about the matter will deny that this, too, is a very necessary thing for the teacher to know.

Educational philosophy tries to determine what is the purpose of education and what is the end toward which the efforts of the teacher are consciously directed. Here is a place in which teachers and philosophers are likely to differ widely. Every teacher will probably acknowledge that it is necessary to have a fixed aim, but that the aim is so apparent and so self-evident that no study of philosophy is necessary to have it clearly before him. The aim and purpose are not so apparent to the philosopher.

Finally, educational philosophy seeks to determine the content of the subject. That is, it tries to determine what the subject contains that can be utilized by the teacher for the purpose of leading the student to the real end of education.

If there has been one advance in educational truth better demonstrated than another, it is that in schools for general education the knowledge of the facts acquired is not the chief value to be derived from a particular study. There is something more important than that, even in science. Just as the benefit derived from the study of algebra is not to be looked for in the answers to the problems that the student so laboriously solves, and the value of the study of Latin comes not from the knowledge of the historical facts that the pupil learns while reading the Latin language, so the value of the study of science does not depend upon the knowledge that the pupil acquires, but upon the power the student acquires while gaining that knowledge. In physics one set of exercises may be substituted for another without any disadvantage. It makes no difference whether one selection of animals is studied in zoölogy or another, provided other things are equal; and one set of exercises in chemistry may be a full equivalent for another series, and yet it would be wrong to give both. In fact, there is recognized a fair degree of equivalency among scientific subjects; something in which they agree among themselves and differ from other subjects in their power to influence the mental habits of students.

In our work in zoölogy we study the structure and life of animals, but if my classes fail to see and to recognize the processes by which a general concept of a group is formed; if they fail to discriminate and compare; if they do not get into the habit of analyzing a specimen before them and of examining it part by part; if they do not learn what is involved in a logical definition; and, more than this, if they do not carry this habit of mind into every other subject in school, I feel that my work

has been a failure, no matter how many or what animals they have studied, or how neat their notebooks, or how artistic their drawings.

In the determination of the laws of falling bodies, if my classes fail to perceive the continued activity of a constant force by means of the effects; if they do not recognize the uniformity in the apparent diversity; if they do not recognize that here is a law and how to perceive that law; if all that my students get out of the exercise is knowledge that d=}gt2; or, even worse, if they learn that in the laboratory they can get the result that the text-book says they can get, that the book has told the truth and they have verified the statement, then I am not only a failure as a teacher, but I am a sham and a fraud, and my laboratory is part of a juggler's outfit, the principal purpose of which is to dazzle the pupil and the public.

If, in the determination of copper in copper sulphate, I fail to make my pupils see that the atoms of copper in the final compound which is weighed are the identical atoms with which we began; if the pupil is unable at any stage of the proceeding to point out where the atoms of copper are, then my work is a failure, and the educational value of chemistry is either accidental or negative.

The results obtained from the pursuit of scientific subjects under the influence of such a conception are likely to be very different from what they would be if it were believed that the knowledge of a few animal forms or a few experiments in physics were the purpose of scientific study. Of course, it is understood that a professional chemist, or an electrician, or an investigator in biology, must know the facts of the particular branch of science that engages his efforts, and must set to work directly and explicitly for the purposes of learning those facts. But that is a phase of work that does not apply to high-school science.

I do not decry the learning of facts, nor would I set up for the pupil this more important but less tangible aim. By a pupil's knowledge of facts the teacher may test in a measure the clearness of comprehension, the awakening of power, that the pupil obtains. But the teacher must look beyond the mere facts of the subject to the true content that furnishes the reason for its introduction into the curriculum.

How many

The day has gone by when a knowledge of subject-matter is considered sufficient preparation for teaching. How much knowledge of mathematics, higher and lower, is necessary to make a person a good teacher of fourthgrade arithmetic ? How much knowledge of literature and language would guarantee success in teaching third-grade reading? university graduates would undertake a position in the grades of a city school with assurance of success? It is only a tempting of Providence that permits persons too poorly prepared to do grade work to teach in a high school. The application of pedagogical principles is as necessary to high-school work as it is in other grades, and university methods and models are not always capable of universal application.

The teaching of science is still in an inchoate and formative condition. There is no general agreement among teachers of any science, nor between different schools, concerning what shall be taught. Perhaps physics is the science which in high schools is best taught and most clearly defined. But physics in one school means a very different thing from what it does in another school.

The past few years have witnessed many attempts to formulate a course of study in science that shall constitute a point of departure for the teaching in high schools; something that high schools can teach and that colleges can reasonably expect; something that shall be of value to all students who do not expect to go to college; and yet something that shall be a fair equivalent for preparatory studies that are now required for college entrance. This section of the National Educational Association four years ago appointed a committee for the special purpose of formulating such a course. That committee, after much work, failed to agree, and, so far as accomplishing what it undertook to do, it is as if it had not been. No such course has yet been formulated, and I believe that no such formulated course ever will be generally adopted until it has its basis in the activities of the pupil rather than in the facts of science. A successful and meritorious course in science can never be made by addition nor subtraction nor substitution. No series of exercises can ever be presumed to give constant results. It certainly is not possible at the present time, and may never be possible, to state a course of science in terms of mental activity. But until that is done all of our courses in science must be tentative and unpedagogical. Until someone makes a study of the psychology of laboratory science, or shows just the phases of human activity that are most economically cultivated by each scientific subject, our teaching must continue to be more or less empirical and unscientific.

The recent recovery of classical subjects from threatened displacement. has followed the recognition that the language of a people is the key to the thoughts of a people, and not merely a quantity of information, valuable or useless as the individual judgment considers it. The revival of history has come about from recognition of the fact that history is an expression of the life of a people, and not merely a catalog of miscellaneous events. A similar change must occur in the teaching of science. The purpose and reason for science instruction must be sought for in the mind of the pupil, and not in the facts of the subject. For this aspect of the case I plead with all the earnestness of a decided conviction.

The greatest contribution of science to pedagogy has been the "scientific method." The "scientific method" is not a method of teaching, but it is a method of thought. It is a method capable of universal application. This universal method, in all of its ramifications, should constitute the basis for all our courses of study in science, and should determine the method and data of teaching. I plead for a study of this universal

method of thought, and for its exemplification in the things we teach. Then will there be no question concerning what shall be the course of study in science, no hesitation on the part of colleges to accept it as a college-entrance requirement, and no doubt concerning the value of science teaching.

WHAT THE TEACHER OF SCIENCE CAN DO TO MAKE THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS MORE POPULAR

W. S. BLATCHLEY, STATE GEOLOGIST FOR INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS, IND. The civilization of the world of today is the net result of the study of science during the centuries past. Fifty thousand years ago man was nature's slave a wild animal roaming with still wilder animals over the boundless plains and thru the unbroken forests of Asia and Africa, or mingling with the hyena and cave-bear in the caverns of central Europe. Cowering with fright at the sound of the lightning's voice; gazing with awe upon the sheets of flame and jets of steam as they issued from volcanic furnace; wondering at the mighty strength which hurled the massive rock down the mountain's side, man stood surrounded by the forces of nature, yet ignorant of their power. Naked he was; scorched by the sun by day and pinched by the frost by night; hungry, unless by chance he happened upon a tree of wild fruit or slew by brute force one of his daily companions; houseless, altho surrounded by the material that was to shelter the millions; without family ties or the simplest knowledge of a form of government, man was hardly on a par with his distant cousin, the gorilla of today. Compare with the animal of then the cultured gentleman of now, and what scientist but would hesitate before pronouncing them of the same species!

It is not necessary in this connection to review in detail the various stages of man's civilization from the moment that he first used fire to warm his body and cook his food, on up thru the ages of stone, bronze, and iron, to the present age of steam and electricity. Suffice it to say that his advancement was brought about by the mental operations of independent observation, experiment, classification, deduction, and generalization. These are the operations which lie at the base of all scientific training, all scientific knowledge. In our secondary schoolshigh schools and academies—he alone is a successful teacher of science who can lead his pupils properly to observe and experiment. After these come the higher steps of comparison, deduction, and, finally, generalization, or the proper correlation and unification of observed facts and phenomena. These more advanced steps of scientific training are, in my opinion, suitable mainly to the curriculums of colleges and universities. But to the great majority of high-school pupils a college or university