« PreviousContinue »
the plants are best able to use in making the different kinds of their food is esential to our understanding of procedure in keeping up the fertility of the soil. This problem should be studied experimentally, at least in part. Something of growth should be studied, how plants grow from the seedling to the adult form, the rate of growth, the localization of growth, conditions necessary for growth, especially the conditions of temperature, water supply and food supply. Germination at different temperatures might be tested, and correlated with the temperatures out doors in spring, at time when seeds are commonly planted. Practical questions are the relation of the minimum temperature for growth to the time of planting for wheat, or oats, corn, beans and pumpkins, etc.
The growth responses of plants by which they adjust themselves to their environment may be studied in connection with growth in general, the responses to gravitation, light, etc., in general causing stems to grow up and roots down, and leaves to arrange themselves in positions favorable to receive the light.
In the study of Morphology and structure, the use of the microscope, while necessary for certain things, should be reduced to the minimum for high school students. Protoplasm, cells, cell nuclei and chlorophyll bodies, cannot be seen adequately without the compound microscope, and every student should see them, so that they will not be mere words to him. Likewise the bacteria, yeasts, and the spores of lower plants need high power of magnification. But there is so much of structure and morphology that can be seen with the eye alone or with a good hand lens, that it seems undesirable to have high school students spend a very large proportion of their time looking through the compound microscope.
The morphology of both the vegetative and reproductive structures of the higher plants offers almost unlimited material for observation with the eye alone, or with the aid of a hand lens, though the cells actually concerned in fertilization can be seen only with high magnification, and they should be seen.
The process of reproduction and the various methods of accomplishing it are of fundamental importance both for a scientific knowledge of plants and for the usefulness of plants to man.
First and foremost among the reproductive bodies of plants are the seeds, and the great variety of structures concerned in their formation and distribution, involving fruits as well as seeds. Seeds and fruits and their accessory structures are of immense value to man as food and occasionally (cotton) as material for clothing. Kinds of seeds as to structure, as to different foods furnished, and as to species useful and detrimental to man, are topics that may be studied as far as time allows. Testing vitality of seeds is a practical problem. The
. arrangements for cross pollination by insects gives another opportunity of studying seed in relation to certain animals. Methods of seed distribution are of importance. A knowledge of the process of fertilization is essential
to the understanding of the laws of heredity, and this knowledge is essential to our understanding of how plants and animals may be improved by breeding. Many plants are propagated in other ways than by seeds, vegetative methods of propagation. A knowledge of these may be of practical value, as well as give insight into plant life. , Many of our cultivated plants are propagated as crops by these methods. Some of these methods are by slips, or cuttings, by layering, by grafting, by budding, by runners, tubers, bulbs, etc. Some experimental work on cuttings is easily done.
A knowledge of variations of plants, of the degree and kinds of variation within a species or variety, and of variation among species and varieties lies at the basis of improvement of plants by selection, selection first of the best variety for a given purpose, and second selection for a high standard within the variety chosen for cultivation.
In the study of fungi, bacteria and yeasts some use of the compound microscope is necessary, and yet the most valuable knowledge about them is not their structure and morphology, but their physiological processes. In relation to life upon the earth as a whole they play the part of scavengers, decomposing organic matter, ridding the earth of the dead bodies of plants and animals, setting free the chemical elements that composed them, sometimes forming new combinations, and allowing those elements to be used over and over by successive generations of living things. In these transformations of organic matter the organisms concerned have many and varied relations to man. He must protect his food from them to preserve it from putrefaction, but in the soil this same process is necessary to keep up the soil fertility. They may spoil his cider, but in doing it they produce his vinegar. They may destroy sugar by alcoholic fermentation, but at the same time a gas is produced which under suitable condition raises his bread. They dispose of his sewage, but may poison his drinking water. They may cause disease of his plants, his domestic animals or of himself. A knowledge of their physiology, their distribution, and methods for their control is more important than to know their size, shape and structure. They should be studied partly by experiment to show some of these relations, and partly by observatoin to enable the students to recognize some of the most common diseases of cultivated plants.
Besides its value for training in method and its relation to practical life, science in general and biology in particular has other values. Let us mention the esthetic and recreative values. It seems often to be forgotten in the demands for vocational training, for “practical" education, that "life is more than meat” and that the "fullness of life" consists in the things over and above those just necessary for food, clothing and shelter. Even the beasts of the field get so much as that, and if the children of men are trained for nothing higher, “what pre-eminence has man above the beasts?"
By many it may not have been forgotten because it has never been realized that the ability to take healthful recreation in fields far removed from
the grind of practical life, especially for those in the less congenial, the soulcrushing occupations, that this ability has a value, even a money value; that the individual who can find such recreation will do better work and will last longer than the one who does not know how to spend his spare time except to his own detriment. But far more than the money value, healthful recreation has a moral, a spiritual value, to foster which is certainly as much the proper aim of education as to prepare for a vocation. In these recreative and esthetic values botany takes a high place. Perhaps these values can come most simply and naturally with the knowledge of the kinds of plants growing about us in a state of nature, and of those kinds planted for ornament about our homes, along our streets or in our parks, together with a knowledge of their adaptation to their surroundings in nature or their use under cultivation. The failure to give this knowledge of plants has been the cause of frequent and caustic criticism of courses in botany or biology. Under ideal conditions the knowledge of the common plants of a student's locality should be learned before he reaches the high school, but if they have not been learned then the high school course should give him something of that knowledge. In the larger cities this problem is a difficult one, but the streets or vacant lots, the parks, and even the markets, may furnish material. The knowledge which is most satisfactory is that which enables one to recognize a tree, a shrub or a flower at sight, as one recognizes a friend, by salient characteristics, not by a complete technical description such as is found in the manuals of botany. The use of the manual should be taught to those who are interested enough to want to know how to identify plants with it.
Some writers on educational topics recognize what they call the interpretative value of science. The attainment of that mental state which enables one to see or recognize rather than to solve, a situation. This value is hardly to be attained by learning either a method of work or any given set of facts as information. The method and information may enable one to solve the situation presented, but not necessarily to recognize it as a situation requiring solution. This latter ability seems to me to depend on a natural alertness of mind, an ability to see readily new relations that are quite remote from those learned by previous experience. It is not readily attained by any definite activity on the part of either teacher or pupil, except that a thorough understanding of the subject is favorable to it. Its attainment can hardly be made the special aim in course, but it must be incidental.
Science has also a cultural value, and by that I mean the attainment of that state of mind which enables one to see those wide and far-reaching relations that give perspective, and enable one to estimate values correctly in the various fields of man's activities, to see his place in nature and to obtain that "imaginative insight into human life,” which is perhaps the essence of culture. The culture value of science is not a thing wholly apart from the other values. It might be called the higher synthesis of those values, which sets them all in their proper perspective, and sees science itself in its proper relation to other departments of human knowledge. Such perspective is obtained when the student sees that, however different man is from the other animals and the animals from plants yet they are all one in having similar substance, the protoplasm, as the physical basis of life, in having cell structure, in being dependent upon the same kinds of chemical substances for foods; that all are dependent for matter and energy upon the food manufacturing and energy storing capacity of green plants, that the energy so stored is transformed sunlight, that the energy stored up in the coal, perhaps millions of years ago, is only transformed sunlight which on further transformation turns the wheels of industry for so much of human life; that in the work of nature as a whole the fungi and bacteria have a necessary part to play in the destruction of organic matter; that in carrying out their work they are sometimes directly opposed to, sometimes directly in harmony with man's immediate wishes, but always absolutely necessary to the flux and flow of organic and inorganic material; that perhaps the causation of disease by bacteria is to be considered as only one phase of this change of organic to inorganic matter; that pain, or at least the capacity to suffer pain is a necessary condition of the development of conscious and intelligent life, that pain is at once a warning of bad adjustment to environment, and a stimulus to the study and better comprehension of that environment; that apparent stupidity of school children is often due to malnutrition, to deafness or to poor sight; that persistent wrong doing likewise is sometimes the result of bad nutrition or of a diseased or injured brain; and finally, that death itself, is absolutely necessary to the continuance upon the earth of life as we know it. If living beings are to have the power to propagate their kind, without death there would be neither space nor food for all the millions on millions that have inhabited the earth since "first the Alight of years began." And when the student of biology can trace in his imagination the evolution of life from primordial slime to the brain of a Darwin, trace it with all its blind groping, its instinctive striving, and see it emerge at a level where it can ally itself with that same creative power which directed it on the upward, million-year-long journey, and can do something to modify its own future destiny upon the earth, does that not give perspective, does that not give "imaginative insight into human life?” If it does then science is justified in its claims to cultural value.
Do not understand me to believe that all these values can come in full measure to pupils in the first year of the high school, but even those pupils can be taught some of the things which are fundamental in the attainment of these values.
I have tried to point out some of the principles upon which, in my opinion, a successful course in botany must be based, to indicate what phases of it are most illuminating, and give the best insight into the life of plants, whether they are viewed merely as vegetation, as doers of the world's work, or as contributors to the necessity and enjoyment of man. I have not laid out a new course, but have only pointed out where in our old courses the emphasis should be placed in order to serve best both pure science and practical life, especially but not exclusively that phase of practical life exemplified in agriculture. I have not indicated in details, but only in general what the course should contain, and would not mean to imply that nothing should be put in the course which is not here mentioned. Perhaps every teacher will think of topics not mentioned here that might be added to advantage. The only question I should ask is this: Is there time to do that in addition to the more fundamental things? To cite a specific case, I have not put in the outline a study of types of Bryophyts, Pteridotphytes and Spermatophytes to show the progress of evolution from the lower to the higher plants. My main reason for omitting it, is a doubt whether high school students, especially those of the first year, are sufficiently mature to see adequately the significance of such a series of types. I am assured by some excellent high school teachers of botany that they teach that phase of the course with a reasonable degree of satisfaction to themselves and of illumination to their students. To such I should say, "Keep on.” Certain it is that nowhere else in botany and perhaps nowhere else in the whole field of biology can equally valuable evidence for evolution be presented for first hand study in so little time and with material so easily accessible as in the series from Bryophytes to Spermatophytes. Nevertheless in a half year course with students in the first year of the high school I should not consider the course a failure because this phase of the subject was not included.
Let us recapitulate the main points made in the paper:
1. Educationally science as method is of more value than science as subject matter. The distinctive feature of the scientific method is the determination of the truth of some of the primary facts of the science at first hand by every student, by observation or experiment, and drawing conclusions or making judgments upon them.
2. The criticism of science courses that they lack continuity, interdependence and organization has some validity, yet there is a continuity commonly overlooked, namely the continuity of method, and the continuity of the laws of nature which are common to the different sciences.
3. Still further continuity and better organization are possible using agriculture as the center of organization. This makes the contact of pure science with life, thus meeting the demand that education should be more practical. It also gives the opportunity to carry over or transfer the discipline of pure science, that is, its method, into the field of applied science. It is perhaps only when a method is consciously carried over into another field that the formal discipline of a subject attains a general value.
4. The Spermatophytes, and the fungi, yeasts and bacteria are the