College Teaching Part 10

3. A disposition to deny the student the right to reach conclusions in the laboratory,--or, as we flamboyantly say, to "generalize." Now in reality the only earthly value of _facts_ is to get _truth_,--that is, conclusions or generalizations. To deny this privilege is taxation without representation in respect to personality. The purpose of the laboratory is to enable students to think, to think accurately and with purpose, to reach their own conclusions. The getting of facts by observation is only a minor detail. In reality, the data the student can get from books are much more reliable than his own observations are likely to be. Our laboratory training should add gradually to the accuracy of his observations, but particularly it should enable him to use his own and other persons' facts conjointly, and with proper discrimination, in reaching conclusions. To do other than this tends to abort the reasoning att.i.tude and power, and teaches the pupil to stand pa.s.sive in the presence of facts and to divorce facts and conclusions. The fear is, of course, that the students will get wrong conclusions and acquire the habit of jumping prematurely to generalizations. But this situation, while critical, is the very glory of the method. What we want to do is to ask them continually,--wherever possible,--_where_ _their facts seem to lead them_. Their conclusions are liable to be quite wrong, to be sure. But our province as teachers is to see that the facts ignorance of which made this conclusion wrong are brought to their attention,--and it is not absolutely material whether they discover these facts themselves or some one else does.

What we want to compa.s.s is practice in reaching conclusions, and the recognition of the necessity of getting and discriminating facts in doing so, together with a realization that there are probably many other facts which we have not discovered that would modify our conclusions. This keeps the mind open. In other words, the student may thus be brought to realize the meaning of the "working hypothesis" and the method of approximation to truth. It makes no difference if one "jumps to a conclusion," if he jumps in the light of all his known facts and holds his conclusion _tentatively_. It is much better to reach wrong conclusions through inadequate facts than to have the mind come to a standstill in the presence of facts. Instead of being a threat, reaching a wrong conclusion gives us the opportunity to train students in holding their conclusions open-mindedly and subject to revision through new facts. Reaching wrong or partial conclusions and correcting them may be made even more educative than reaching right ones at the outset. This would not be true if the conclusion were being sought for the sake of the science. But it is being sought solely for the sake of the student. The distinction is important. The inability to make it is one of the reasons why research men so often fail as teachers.

All through life the student will be forced to draw conclusions from two types of facts,--both of which will be incomplete: those he himself has observed and those which came to him from other observers.

While he must always feel free to try out any and all facts for himself, it is quite as important in practice that he be able to weigh other persons' facts discriminatingly. We teach in the laboratory that the pupil should not take his facts second hand, though we rather insist that he do so with his conclusions. In reality it is often much better to take our facts second hand; the stultifying thing is to take our conclusions so.

=A normal complete mental reaction for every laboratory exercise=

4. The dependence upon outlines and manuals. This is one of the most deadening devices that we have inst.i.tuted to economize gray matter and increase the quant.i.ty of laboratory records at the expense of real initiative and thinking. It is easy for the reader to a.n.a.lyze for himself the mental reaction, or lack of it, of the student in following the usual detailed laboratory outline. _Every laboratory exercise should be an educative situation calling for a complete mental reaction from the pupil._ In the first place, no exercise should be used which is not really vital and educative. This a.s.sured, the full mental reaction of the student should be about as follows:

(1) The cursory survey of the situation.

(2) The raising by the student of such questions as seem to him interesting or worthy of solution. (Here, of course, the teacher can by skillful questioning lead the cla.s.s to raise all necessary problems, and increase the student's willingness to attack them.)

(3) The determination through cla.s.s conference of the order and method of attacking the problems, and the reasons therefor.

(4) The acc.u.mulation and record of discovered facts (sharply eliminating all inferences).

(5) The arrangement (cla.s.sification) and appraisal (discrimination) of the discovered facts.

(6) Conclusions or inferences from the facts. (These should be very sharply and critically examined by teacher and cla.s.s, to see to what extent they are really valid and supported by the facts.)

(7) Retesting of conclusions by new facts submitted by cla.s.s, by teacher, or from books, with an effort to diminish prejudice as a factor in conclusions, and to increase the willingness to approach our own conclusions with an open mind.

When laboratory outlines are used at all they should consist merely of directions, and suggestions, and stimulating questions which will start the pupils on the main quest,--the raising and solving of their own problems.

SOME MOOT PROBLEMS[2]

=Ascending or descending order?=

1. Shall we begin with the simple, little-known, lower forms and follow the ascending order, which is a.n.a.logous at least to the evolutionary order? Or shall we begin with the more complex but better-known forms and go downward? It seems to the writer that the former method has the advantage in actual interest; in its suggestiveness of evolution, which is the most important single impression the student will get from his course; and in the mental satisfactions that come to pupil and teacher alike from the sense of progress. However, our material is so rich, so interesting, and so plastic that it makes little difference where we begin if only we have a clear idea of what we want to accomplish.

=Morphology versus other interests=

2. What proportion of time should be given to morphology in relation to other interests? For several reasons morphology has been overemphasized. It lends itself to the older conception of the laboratory as a place to observe and record facts. It offers little temptation to reach conclusions. It calls for little use of gray matter. This makes it an easy laboratory enterprise. It is what the grade teachers call "busy" work, and can be multiplied indefinitely.

It can be made to smack of exactness and thoroughness.

Furthermore, morphology _is_ in reality a basal consideration. It is a legitimate part of an introductory course,--but never for its own sake nor to prepare for higher courses. But morphology is, however, only the starting point for the higher mental processes by which different forms of organisms are compared, for the correlating of structure with activity, for appreciation of adaptations of 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 pa.s.ses 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.

=Few types or many?=

3. Shall a few forms be studied thoroughly, or many forms be studied more superficially? There is something of value in each of these practices. It is possible to over-emphasize 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 cla.s.s 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 ill.u.s.trate very effectively.

=Distribution of time=

4. What proportion of time should be given to the various 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 cla.s.s 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 beginning course=

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 att.i.tude that makes a successful teacher, at least of elementary cla.s.ses,--and for these reasons: he begrudges the time spent in teaching elementary cla.s.ses, presents the subject as primarily preparatory to upper courses, subordinates the human elements to the scientific elements, and actually exploits the cla.s.s in the interest of research. The real teacher's question about an entering cla.s.s is this: "How can I best use the materials of our science to make 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 a.s.sumed that the answers to the two questions are identical. This is one of the most vicious a.s.sumptions 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.

=Necessity of differentiation and recognition of the two functions=

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 biology 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 att.i.tudes and appreciations. These may be gained in part by furnis.h.i.+ng 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.

=More vital _tests_ of results of teaching must be found=

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 att.i.tude 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 att.i.tude. This needs to be done indirectly, to be sure. 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

=Scarcity of authoritative pedagogical literature in biology=

For various reasons very little attention has been given to the pedagogy of college biology by those in the best position to throw light upon this vital problem. More information as to the att.i.tude 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 pedagogical points of view. The writer has personal knowledge that teaching suggestions are still resented by some college teachers of zoology. Ill.u.s.trations of the tendency to incorporate pedagogical material in textbooks on biological subjects can be found in

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.

T. W. GALLOWAY _Beloit College_

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CRAMER, F. Logical Method in Biology. _Popular Science Monthly_, Vol.