structure both to function and to environmental influence. It thus serves as a foundation upon which to build conclusions about really vital matters. Experience teaches that sensitiveness, behavior, and other activities and powers and processes interest young people more than structure. The student's views are essentially sound at this point.

The introductory course should, therefore, be a cycle in which the student passes quite freely back and forth between form, powers, activities, conditions of life, and the conclusions as to the meanings of these. It is important only that he shall know with which consideration he is from time to time engaged.

or many?

3. Shall a few forms be studied thoroughly, or many Few types forms be studied more superficially? There is something of value in each of these practices. It is possible to overemphasize the idea of thoroughness in the introductory courses. Thoroughness is purely a relative condition anyway, since we cannot really master any type. It seems poor pedagogy, in an elementary class particularly, to emphasize small and difficult forms or organs because they demand more painstaking and skill on the part of the student. My own practice in the elementary course is to have a very few specially favorable forms studied with a good deal of care, and a much larger number studied partially, emphasizing those points which they illustrate very effectively.

of time

4. What proportion of time should be given to the various Distribution methods of work? Manifestly the answer to this question depends upon the local equipment and upon the character of the course itself. The suggestion here relates primarily to the general or introductory courses. It seems to me that a sound division of time would be: two or three hours per week of class exercises (lectures, recitations, reports, quiz, etc.) demanding not less than four hours of preparation in text and library work; and four to six hours a week of "practical" work with organisms, about two hours of which should take the form of studies in the field wherever this is possible.

Weakness of the research man as a teacher for the begin

ning course

Necessity of differentiation and recognition of the two functions

66

5. Is the research man the best teacher for the introductory courses? In spite of a good deal of prejudgment on the part of college and university administrators and of the research biologists themselves, I am convinced he is not. While there are notable exceptions, my own observation is that the investigator, whether the head professor or the "teaching fellow," usually does not have the mental attitude that makes a successful teacher, at least of elementary classes, and for these reasons: he begrudges the time spent in teaching elementary classes, presents the subject as primarily preparatory to upper courses, subordinates the human elements to the scientific elements, and actually exploits the class in the interest of research. The real teacher's question about an entering class is this: How can I best use the materials of our science to make

66

real men and women out of these people? The question of the professional investigator is likely to be: "How many of these people are fit to become investigators, and how can I most surely find them and interest them in the science?" This is a perfectly fine and legitimate question; but it is not an appropriate one until the first one has been answered. It has been assumed that the answers to the two questions are identical. This is one of the most vicious assumptions in higher education today, in my opinion." Furthermore, the investigator with his interests centering at the margins of the unknown cannot use the scientific method as a teacher, whose interest must center in the pupil. The points of view are not merely not identical; they are incompatible.

Experience indicates the wisdom of having all beginning courses in biology in colleges and universities given by teachers and not by investigators, mature or immature. All people who propose to teach hiology in the high schools. should have their early courses given from this human point of view, that they may be the better able to come back to it after their graduate work, in their efforts to organize courses for pupils the greater part of whom will never have any but a life interest in the subject. The

problem of presenting the advanced and special courses is relatively an easy one. The investigator is the best possible teacher for advanced students in his own special field if he is endowed with any common sense at all.

TESTS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING

As yet we are notably lacking in regard to the measurement of progress as the result of our teaching. Our usual tests-examination, recitation, quiz, reports, laboratory notebooks - evaluate in a measure work done, knowledge or general grasp acquired, and accuracy developed. We need, however, measurements of skill, of habits, and of the still more intangible attitudes and appreciations. These may be gained in part by furnishing really educative situations and observing the time and character of the student's reaction. Every true teacher is in reality an experimental psychologist, and must apply directly the methods of the psychologist.

The laboratory and field furnish opportunity for this sort of testing. The student may be confronted with an unfamiliar organism or situation and be given a limited time in which to obtain and record his results. He may be asked to state and enumerate the problems that are suggested by the situation; outline a method of solving them; discover as large a body of facts as possible; arrange them in an order that seems to him logical, with his reasons; and to make whatever inferences seem to him sound in the light of facts, supporting his conclusions at every point. The ability to make such a total mental reaction promptly and comprehendingly is the best test of any teaching whatsoever. The important thing is that we shall not ourselves lose sight of the essential parts of it in our enthusiasm for one portion of it.

In judging attitude and appreciation I think it is possible for discriminating teachers to obtain the testimony of the pupil himself in appraisal of his own progress and attitude. This needs to be done indirectly, to be sure.

More vital

tests of results of

teaching found

must be

Scarcity of authoritative pedagogical

biology

The student's self-judgment may not be accurate; but it is not at all impossible to secure a disposition in students to measure and estimate their own progress in these various things with some accuracy and fairness of mind. Besides its incidental value as a test, I know of no realm of biological observation, discrimination, and conclusion more likely to prove profitable to the student than this effort to estimate, without prejudice, his own growth.

THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT

For various reasons very little attention has been given to the pedagogy of college biology by those in the best literature in position to throw light upon this vital problem. More information as to the attitude of teachers of the subject is to be derived from college and university catalogs than elsewhere, howbeit of a somewhat stereotyped and standardized kind. Much more has been written relative to the teaching of biology in the secondary schools. In my opinion the most effective teaching of biology in America today is being done in the best high schools by teachers who have been forced to acquire a pedagogical background that would enable them to reconstruct completely their presentation of the subject. Most of these people obtained very little help in this task from their college courses in biology. For these reasons every college teacher will greatly profit by studying what has been written for the secondary teachers. School Science and Mathematics (Chicago) is the best source for current views in this field. Its files will show no little of the best thought and investigation that have been devoted to the principles underlying instruction in biology. Lloyd and Bigelow, in The Teaching of Biology (Longmans, Green & Co.), have treated the problems of secondary biology at length. Ganong's Teaching Botanist (The Macmillan Company) has high value.

The authors of textbooks of biology, botany, and zoology issued during the last ten years have ventured to develop in their prefaces, appendices, and elsewhere, their peda

gogical points of view. The writer has personal knowledge that teaching suggestions are still resented by some college teachers of zoology. Illustrations of the tendency to incorporate pedagogical material in textbooks biological subjects can be found in

on

DODGE, C. W. Practical Biology. Harper and Brothers, 1894. GAGER, C. S. Fundamentals of Botany. P. Blakiston's Son & Co., 1916.

GALLOWAY, T. W. Textbook of Zoology. P. Blakiston's Son & Co.,

1915.

KINGSLEY, J. S. Textbook of Vertebrate Zoology. H. Holt & Co. PETRUNKEVITCH, A. Morphology of Invertebrate Types. The Macmillan Company, 1916.

Beloit College

T. W. GALLOWAY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CRAMER, F. Logical Method in Biology. Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 44, page 372. 1894.

FARLOW, W. G. Biological Teaching in Colleges. Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 28, page 581. 1886.

HARVEY, N. A. Pedagogical Content of Zoology. Proceedings National Education Association, 1899; page 1106.

HODGE, C. F. Dynamic Biology. Pedagogical Seminar, Vols. 11-12. HUXLEY, J. H. Educational Value of Natural History Science. Essay II, Science and. Education, 1854.

RUSK, R. R. Introduction to Experimental Education. Longmans, Green & Co., 1912.

SAUNDERS, S. J. Value of Research in Education. School Science and Mathematics, Vol. II, March, 1902.

SMALLWOOD, W. M. Biology as a Culture Study. Journal of Pedagogy, Vol. 17, page 231.

WELTON, J. Psychology of Education (chapter on "Character"). The Macmillan Company, 1911.