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.

It is of such importance to teach geography so that pupils may get a real and vital knowledge of the

Teaching facts

without binding them together in causal relations

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

river would have become a symbol to which could be attached a body of real and vital knowledge, which could not fail to interest even children; and this is the only sort of knowledge that will be of service to them in after life. It is probable that pupils who are required to memorize geographical names dissociated from vital content will develop a vicious habit of mind, which will later tend to make them satisfied with names for things, instead of the realities themselves.

A correspondent, knowing the opinion of the writer on the subject under discussion, wishes to A plausible but know what valid objections there erroneous principle of teaching

can be to requiring pupils ten or eleven years of age to learn the largest cities in each of the states of the Union, and the principal countries throughout the world. He says: "Pupils will need some time to know the names of these cities and countries; and why should they not learn them while they have a memory for such things? If they wait until they are seventeen or eighteen years of age, it will be very difficult for them then to learn these details."

This position appears reasonable from one standpoint; but there is a fundamental error implied in it. It is of doubtful value to any person to have memorized the names of cities, if he has not previ

ously learned some facts about them which will make it worth while to remember them. Moreover, it is psychologically difficult and wasteful to memorize a geographical name dissociated from political or other characteristics of a physiographic setting. Memory depends primarily upon associating things according to temporal, spatial, or natural connections. But a name of an unknown city, as far as the child is concerned, can hardly be connected with anything which will serve as a bond in memory. It must be memorized by constant repetition, so that it will become fixed in a vocal series. This is actually what young pupils do for the most part when they are required to learn the names of a number of cities in each state. First, they give the name of the state, and then recite the cities in a certain order; and they go over this "piece" so often that it gets established in vocal habit after much time and labor.

It seems clear that the proper way to help a pupil to remember any given city is first to have him study the characteristics of the region 'round about, which have led to the establishment of this city. Then he should be made familiar with the industries and other interests and activities of the city which have contributed to its development. It will be of greater value to a pupil to learn in this manner ten cities in 'America during the first two or three years of study

of geography, than to learn a hundred cities merely by name; and the principle applies to the learning of cities and countries throughout the world. Study of the sort advocated will get pupils into the way of thinking cause and effect in geography, which is of primary importance. The chief danger to be avoided is reliance upon verbal memory.

No subject in the curriculum affords a better opportunity for effective teaching than geography. The facts of this study are concrete and definite, and are well

Geography a good subject for effective teaching

adapted to the child mind, if they be presented in the right order and at the proper stage of development. Most of the fundamental conceptions of geography can be gained by young children if the work be done out-of-doors, or at least if constant reference be made to the geographical conditions in the environment, and if assistance be gained from relief maps and globes, lantern views, and the like. But probably in no subject has the adult point of view been so persistently followed in the treatment of the material as in geography; in consequence of which there is, as there has always been, waste in the teaching of the subject. And what is to be chiefly regretted in this ineffective teaching, there are established mental habits which militate against vital work later on in any study. A child