[Footnote: Read before the State Normal Institute at Winona, Minnesota,
April 28, 1881, by Clarence M. Boutelle, Professor of Mathematics and
Physical Science in the State Normal School.]
Very little, perhaps, which is new can be said regarding the teaching
of physical science by the experimental method. Special schools for
scientific education, with large and costly laboratories, are by no
means few nor poorly attended; scientific books and periodicals are
widely read; scientific lectures are popular. But, while in many schools
of advanced grade, science is taught in a scientific way, in many others
the work is confined to the mere study of books, and in only a few of
our common district schools is it taught at all.
I shall advocate, and I believe with good reason, the use of apparatus
and experiments to supplement the knowledge gained from books in schools
where books are used, the giving of lessons to younger children who do
not use books, and the giving of these lessons to some extent in all
our schools. And the facts which I have gathered together regarding the
teaching of science will be used with all these ends in view.
Physics--using the term in its broadest sense--has been defined as the
science which has for its object the study of the material world, the
phenomena which it presents to us, the laws which govern (or account
for) these phenomena, and the applications which can be made of either
classes of related phenomena, or of laws, to the wants of man. Thus
broadly defined, physics would be one of two great subjects covering the
whole domain of knowledge. The entire world of matter, as distinguished
from the world of mind, would be presented to us in a comprehensive
study of physics.
I shall consider in this discussion only a limited part of this great
subject. Phenomena modified by the action of the vital force, either in
plants or in animals, will be excluded; I shall not, therefore, consider
such subjects as botany or zoölogy. Geology and related branches will
also be omitted by restricting our study to phenomena which take place
in short, definite, measurable periods of time. And lastly, those
subjects in which, as in astronomy, the phenomena take place beyond
the control of student and teacher, and in which their repetition at
pleasure is impossible, will not be considered. Natural philosophy, or
physics, as this term is generally used, and chemistry, will, therefore,
be the subjects which we will consider as sources from which to draw
matter for lessons for the children in our schools.
The child's mind has the receptive side, the sensibility, the most
prominent. His senses are alert. He handles and examines objects about
him. He sees more, and he learns more from the seeing, than he will in
later years unless his perceptive powers are definitely trained and
observation made a habit. His judgment and his will are weak. He reasons
imperfectly. He chooses without appropriate motives. He needs the
building up and development given by educational training. _Nature
points out the method._
Sensibility being the characteristic of his mind, we must appeal to him
through his senses. We must use the concrete; through it we must act
upon his weak will and immature judgment. From his natural curiosity we
must develop attention. His naturally strong perceptive powers must be
made yet stronger; they must be led in proper directions and fixed upon
appropriate objects. He must be led to appreciate the relation between
cause and effects--to associate together related facts--and to state
what he knows in a definite, clear, and forcible manner.
Object lessons, conversational lessons, lessons on animals, lessons
based on pictures and other devices, have been used to meet this demand
of the child's mental make up. Good in many respects, and vastly better
than mere book work, they have faults which I shall point out in
connection with the corresponding advantages of easy lessons in the
elements of science. I shall not quibble over definitions. Object
lessons may, perhaps, properly be said to include lessons such as it
seems to me should be given--lessons drawn from natural philosophy or
chemistry--but I use the term here in the sense in which it is often
used, as meaning lessons based upon some object. A thimble, a knife, a
watch, for instance, each of these being a favorite with a certain class
of object teachers, may be taken.
The objections are:
1. Little new knowledge can be given which is simple and appropriate.
Most children already know the names of such objects as are chosen,
the names of the most prominent parts, the materials of which they are
composed and their uses. Much that is often given should be omitted
altogether if we fairly regard the economy of the child's time and
mental strength. It doesn't pay to teach children that which isn't worth
remembering, and which we don't care to have them remember.
2. Study of the qualities of materials is a prominent part of lessons on
objects. Such study is really the study of physical science, but with
objects such as are usually selected is a very difficult part to give
to young children. Ask the student who has taken a course in chemistry
whether the study of the qualities of metals and their alloys is easy
work. Ask him how much can readily be shown, and how much must be taken
on authority. Have him tell you how much or how little the thing itself
suggests, and how much must he memorized from the mere book statement
and with difficulty. Study of materials is good to a certain extent, but
it is often carried much too far.
Consider a conversational lesson on some animal. Lessons are sometimes
given on cats. As an element in a reading lesson--to arouse interest--to
hold the attention--to secure correct emphasis and inflection--to make
sure of the reading being good: such work is appropriate. But let us see
what the effect upon the pupil is as regards the knowledge he gains
of the cat, and the effect upon his habits of thought and study. The
student gives some statement as to the appearance--the size--or some
act of his cat. It is usually an imperfect statement drawn from the
imperfect memory of an imperfect observation. And the teacher, having
only a _general knowledge_ of the habits of cats, can correct in only
a general way. Thus habits of faulty and incorrect observation and
inaccurate memory are fastened upon the child. It is no less by the
correction of the false than by the presenting of the true, that we
educate properly.
Besides this there is the fact that traits, habits, and peculiarities
of animals are not always manifested when we wish them to be. Suppose
a teacher asks a child to notice the way in which a dog drinks, for
example; the child may have to wait until long after all the associated
facts, the reasons why this thing was to be observed--the lesson as a
whole of which this formed a part--have all grown dim in the memory,
before the chance for the observation occurs.
Pictures are less valuable as educational aids than objects; at best
they are but partially and imperfectly concrete. The study of pictures
tends to cultivate the imagination and taste, but observation and
judgment are but little exercised.
A comparison of the kind of knowledge gained in either of the above ways
with that gained by a study of science as such, will make some of the
advantages of the latter evident. An act of complete knowledge consists
in the identifying of an attribute with a subject. Attributes of
quality--of condition--of relation, may be gained from lessons in which
objects or pictures are used. Attributes of action which are unregulated
by the observer may be learned from the study of animals. But very
little of actions and changes which can be made to take place under
specified conditions, and with uniformity of result, can be learned
until physical science is drawn upon.
And yet consider the importance of such study. Changes around him appeal
most strongly to the child. "Why _does_ this thing _do_ as it _does_?"
is more frequent than "Why _is_ this thing as it _is_?" He sees changes
of place, of form, of size, of composition, taking place; his curiosity
is aroused; and he is ready to study with avidity, and in a systematic
manner, the changes which his teacher may present to him. Consider
the peculiarities belonging to the study of changes of any sort. The
interest is held, for the mind is constantly gaining the new. The
attention cannot be divided--all parts of the change, all phases of the
action, must be known, and to be known must be _observed_; while in
other forms of lessons the attention may be diverted for a moment to
return to the consideration of exactly what was being observed before.
It goes without saying that in one case quick and accurate observation,
a retentive memory, and the association of causes and effects follow,
and that in the other they do not.
I advocate, therefore, the teaching of physical science in our
schools--_in all our schools_. Physical science taught by the
experimental method.
An experiment has been defined as a question put to Nature, a question
asked in _things_ rather than in _words_, and so conditioned that no
uncertain answer can be given. Nature says that all matter gravitates,
not in words, but in the swing of planets around the sun, and in the
leap of the avalanche. And men have devised ingenious machines through
which Nature may tell us the invariable laws of gravitation, and give
some hint as to why it is true.
There are two kinds of experiments, and two corresponding kinds of
investigators.