356 School Science anb .fl&atbematlcs

DISCUSSION OF PROFESSOR COULTER’S PAPER INFEBRUARY NUMBER.

Editor of the Department of Biology, School Science and Mathe-matics:Until now I have been unable to respond to your invi-

tation to present some discussion of Professor Coulter’s inter-esting article in the February number of SCHOOL SCIENCEAND MATHEMATICS,, on "The Influence of the Teacher’s ResearchWork upon His Teaching of Biology in Secondary Schools."This as well as other articles along similar lines by ProfessorCoulter, have done much to stimulate thought among secondaryschool teachers.A few years ago I believed and advocated that every high

school science teacher should do some original work, even if itcould not be a finished investigation, or thesis, in the sense ofwhat the Germans call ah "Arbeit." It will appear subsequentlythat my reasons were quite different from Dr. Coulter’s. Atthat time it seemed to me that all teachers could make and recordsimple observations, collecting data that would be useful to inves-tigators. Those in whom investigators have discovered abilityto do more, might be encouraged to go on and add their mite toadvancement. To my notion Professor Coulter’s second class ofteachers, "who cannot do research work," would surely be ableto make very useful observations though they themselves mightnot go farther than this. They must have the faculty of obser-vation and accuracy, otherwise they could not even teach. Theseare such a large class of science teachers in secondary schoolsthat, if we accept Professor Coulter’s classification and his ratherradical proposition to shut up departments that cannot be sup-plied with investigator teachers, then there would be few highschools in which any science would be taught.

There are teachers in secondary schools who, I believe, ceulddo some research work but for the too conscientious applicationto their school duties. They ought to be included in the class ofteachers "who can do research work." To justify their exist-ence and ameliorate their condition I would compare them withuniversity professors whose eminent ability not only to conductresearch but also to do it themselves, is well known, but who arenot producing all they might because of an inflexible determina-

2)iscu5sfon of iptofessor Coulter’s paper 357

tion to attend personally to all business routine that is connectedwith their department, thus spending time that should be givento enriching science by their more frequent contributions.

In the matter of insuring accuracy and independence there isno doubt that research will benefit both university and high schoolteaching, but its value for "keeping the teacher current" appliesrather to the former. And here, I believe, we come to the part-ing of the ways. It will be more generally recognized in thefuture, I think, that university and secondary school teachingdiffer both as to content and especially as to method. It has im-pressed itself on me only after considerable experience, and mucheffort to find an explanation of the frequent complaints made bycollege teachers against biology teaching in secondary schools.

First, as to method: It will readily be granted that accuracyis increased by investigation, but unless there is a habit ofaccuracy no valuable research work will ever be done, besides itis a faculty that teaching, as well as other disciplines, can give. Iwould like to interpret Professor Coulter’s too modest confessionof early blundering as the experience of many another teacher-investigator and, therefore, not so much to be regretted. To leadthe pupil up, step by step, beginning with simple concrete things,requires an understanding of the topic that comes far more byrepeated attempts to teach clearly, simple minds, than by anyamateurish investigation that high school teachers can do.

Second, as to content: The primary function of the highschool is recognized to be training and development, while theuniversity, especially in undergraduate work, lays most stress oninforming. Of course the teacher who conducts investigationin a university is doing the highest kind of teaching�includingthe best of all other kinds. This is almost always graduate work.

From much that has been written on the teaching in secondaryschools (especially in science), and my own mistaken earlierbelief and subsequent experience, I am becoming more and moreconvinced that the immature mental development in high schoolpupils and how to meet this condition in these schools is not wellunderstood.

While I believe in the main Professor Coulter^s contentionthat the teacher should keep in touch with investigations in hissubject, for, to teach a little he must know much more than can

358 Scbool Science an& ^atbematfcs

be taught the pupil, he must be as broad as possible and realizethe relativity of all knowledge. Yet I would consider him unwiseif he attempted to teach the results of any investigation until itis confirmed by a second investigation or has stood approved byscientists. Above all things I believe it would be poor pedagogyto teach any controversial question in high schools; in universi-ties, on the other hand, the latest views must be discussed.

Professor Coulter says the investigator who is a teacher willnot "attempt to present things beyond the grasp of his elementarypupils." In the same connection it is tacitly admitted that thisis not because the teacher is also an investigator�for he saysthe pure investigator will do this�but that it is because he is agood teacher, for he further says "one of the fundamentals ofteaching is to relate material to the capacity of the pupil." Theimplication immediately after that, that the teacher needs to bean investigator to lead the pupil beyond his depth, does not seemto be valid since this would be rather "bursting capacity" than anefficiency test. It may be that Professor Coulter did not meanthis, otherwise the teacher would belong to the first of his threeclasses.

While it is true that investigation in any subject will give theteacher first hand knowledge and will make his subject not "diffi-cult to teach," its benefits will be limited to the subject that theteacher can investigate, and for making other subjects his ownin order to present them in an original fashion he is after alldependent on the teacher’s instinct. The fact that a born teachercan do this shows that the power is not peculiar to the investi-gator. On the other hand, I heartily approve what ProfessorCoulter says about the broader teaching that follows keeping upa little investigation in any line.

Finally, I wish to endorse Professor Coulter’s propositions,that "investigation increases accuracy, insures independenceand insures that the teacher will keep close in touch with theadvance of his subject"�all qualities that an investigator musthave, but which the teacher should cultivate not so much for thereaction it may have on his teaching as for enabling him to dosome kind of simple investigation to contribute to the fund ofknowledge. L. MURBACH.

Detroit, April 8, 1905.