stand a thing that was so simple and clear to himself, though he had been for at least forty years dealing at first hand with the data upon which his propositions were based. The statements presented were all condensed generalizations of a large body of observations and concrete materials. The teacher of this fifth-grade class commended the text because of its brevity. She thought it could be easily memorized by pupils, and so learned by them for later use, even if much of it was over their heads now.

The lessons for the rest of the week were much like the first one on Monday morning. They dealt with the building of continents, the conformation of the surface of continents, the establishment of drainage systems on the surface of the earth, etc., etc. In every case the author of the text stated his principles without leading pupils to discover anything as a result of their own observations, and to draw inferences from the facts given. There was very little if anything really concrete in the work throughout the week. The pupils' experiments in the world outside of school were not utilized to any extent. There was no modeling of geographic features in this school, nor even questions on the part of the teacher of the text leading children to work out by their own efforts some of the principles which were being learned. To illustrate this latter defect: when the

conception of a continental divide was being gained, the teacher simply tried to get the pupils to recite the statements in the text. There was no reference, even remotely, to the physiographic features in the neighborhood, which might have introduced the idea of a watershed and a divide. There was no globe in the school; and while there was a map in the textbook, it was not evident that it had been intelligently consulted in working out this lesson. It is doubtful if it would have been of assistance anyway. During the preceding week the pupils had had lessons upon mathematical geography. They had The method in mathe- learned statements regarding matical geography the revolution of the earth on its axis and in its orbit, the inclination of the earth, meridians of longitude, parallels of latitude, the zones, etc. Three days after the class had finished these lessons, some of the pupils were tested on their knowledge of latitude and longitude. Every pupil manifested a certain amount of confusion as to whether meridians of longitude extended from pole to pole, or girdled the earth parallel to the equator. When asked why it was desirable to learn longitude and latitude, they were quite bewildered. The question was put to them, "What use do people anywhere in the world make of longitude and latitude?" and not a child could tell clearly. Looking

into the faces of those children as they were being tested, one could see that their only reaction upon the question was by way of attempt to remember the statements that they had learned in the book. The question was again put to them, "Is there latitude and longitude in this school yard?" and they were confused. They had apparently never thought of meridians of longitude and parallels of latitude as existing anywhere except on the map in their text-book.

It was represented to the visitor that the class had discovered that the seasons were caused by the movements of the earth in its orbit. The questions above referred to were asked the pupils on the twentieth day of October. They had observed that the days were growing shorter, though it happened to be warm at this time; yet they realized from outdoor experience that the year was dying, and that winter would soon be upon us. They were asked to say why the days were becoming shorter, and they could not explain the fact in any way other than to say that the "sun is going south." One might, offhand, take such a statement as an indication that the pupils understood what they were talking about; but when the matter was followed up, it became perfectly apparent that the children had not gained the true conception of why there is a change in the sea

sons. It is doubtful whether pupils of this age can gain such a conception anyway, or ought to be required to attempt it; but it is reasonably certain that the methods employed in this class could not develop any adequate idea of the phenomenon in question. The lessons were mostly words devoid of meaningful content.

Teaching facts without binding them together in causal relations

It is of such importance to teach geography so that pupils may get a real and vital knowledge of the earth as the home of man that we may glance at another series of lessons illustrating merely formal methods frequently seen in the school. For a number of months the work in question has comprised mainly learning by name (1) the capitals of all the states of the Union; (2) the five most important cities in each state; (3) the three largest rivers flowing through each state; (4) all the counties in Wisconsin; (5) the fifteen largest cities of the state; and (6) all the cities, towns and villages in the particular county in which this school is situated. The attitude of the pupils toward this task is significant. From beginning to end their aim has been principally to acquire mere names by ceaseless repetition, in the hope of fixing them in a vocal series, so that, for example, when the word Massachusetts would be mentioned it would automatically

call up other words, as Boston, Lowell, Lawrence, Springfield, Worcester, and the names of three rivers. The pupils as a whole do not have any adequate conception of why the particular five cities mentioned have become the leading ones in any state, or why the rivers take the special course they do through the state.

The teacher, in defending her method, maintains that even if her pupils do not at present know anything vital concerning the cities and rivers, the names of which they are memorizing, they will sometime hear facts regarding them, and it will then prove of advantage to the children to have fixed the names firmly in memory. This seems very

unsound doctrine. It is formalism at best. It makes teaching in this special subject a dull and wasteful business. If before learning the name of any city except the one in which they live, pupils had been made familiar with the general climatic and physical conditions of the state being studied, the fertility of its soil in different regions, the natural drainage courses, and the occupations of the people in various sections determined by the physical conditions; and if in the light of these facts they had been led to discover about where cities would be likely to develop, then the names learned would have acquired some meaning for them. Each name of a city or