and were growing in large quantities. Hundreds of onions had been planted and grown and eaten and numerous crocuscorms and Dutch bulbs of all kinds had been removed.

About two hundred corms of gladioli, a half-bushel of potato tubers, two bushels of the fascicled roots of dahlia, dozens of lily-of-thevalley root stocks and Mexican potato tubers had been handled. That is the only reason why this work seemed so simple to these boys and girls.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, I would just like to point out the difference in the sequence in a course in botany founded directly and entirely upon garden work, such as the one I have described, and the ordinary textbook work. Take the subject of seeds and flowers, for instance, and note the sequence which I have contrasted in outline form. Note that the morphology of the flower, for instance, is placed first in one outline and last in another. Moreover, as I read down the list of topics in the garden sequence, I realize that there was never an instance where this information

had to be administered in "capsular form." Because of numerous contact experiences through his garden work, the child was always more or less familiar with a topic long before it was handled in class, for the topics were continually bobbing up before them in the garden day after day, in one way or another. In practical individual garden work, it is next to an impossibility to study a subject carefully and thoroughly one day and then to "salt" it and lay it upon the shelf for the test at the end of the month, as we can do so successfully in science courses that do not have the practical work for a basis. I know because I have taught under both systems.

Whether this always is the best way to teach the principles of botany or not in the seventh and eighth grades I am not in a position to say. In my own case, however, I am sure that I have never given a course which has seemed so delightful and so satisfactory. The enthusiasm of the class never lagged. They had a project that they were working for. Their whole aim was, of course, to raise vegetables and flowers, and they were always eager to find out all they could about the science of vegetables and flowers. They were always happy and busy, engaged not only with the mere physical drudgery of working the spade and the hoe, but with deep mental problems concerning their work. This was shown by their conversations with each other and by the hundreds of most intelligent questions that were constantly being asked.

It is not at all the easiest course in the world for a teacher to give, for she must be the spirit back of all of their enthusiasm and back of their observations, and she must often very skillfully be ready to present the opportunity for a little research work, and then so quietly withdraw from the field that the child has the whole pleasure of discovery to himself. Moreover, she must have patience to help the individuals as the occasions arise, which often means explaining the same subject much oftener than by the old class method. However, in spite of all the hard work the teacher is constantly rewarded by the interest and by the intelligence of the pupils, and the pupils, on the other hand, receive their reward when they proudly carry home their onions or their pansies.

REMARKS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS BEARING ON THE DISCIPLINARY VALUE OF STUDIES.

BY J. W. A. YOUNG,

The University of Chicago.

In a preceding paper (pp. 1-10, Jan. 1918), I gave a very brief summary of the experimental work done by psychologists on the transfer of training, leaving the discussion and interpretation of the material to the reader. In what follows, I give a few disjointed fragments of my own theorizing on the question of the disciplinary value of studies, especially of mathematics, and of my reactions to the first-hand literature of the work done by psychologists and to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of this work in wider nonpsychological circles.

I. One of the chief reasons why mathematics. should be studied by all is that it exhibits the best and most convincing type of proof known to the human mind. Mathematical certainty is the most satisfying certainty; the mathematical proof is the ideal of all seekers after truth. Every science consciously endeavors to approximate to the mathematical type as closely as the nature of its materials will permit, and measures the reliability of its results by the closeness of the approximation. Every pupil, girl and boy alike, should be shown this type of proof and given practice in it until he has grasped and assimilated something of its spirit. The pupil will of course gain little unless the ideals of mathematical proof function beyond the confines of mathematics.

The expectation that the ideals will so function is based largely upon myriads of practical experiences like the following by one of the experimenters of our list, experiences that are at least as significant (to put it mildly) as counting dots or crossing off a's. W. C. Bagley "is convinced that students who come into his class in psychology after completing thorough courses in the higher mathematics do far better work than those who have not had this 'training.' Something has been carried over from one study to the other. It is certainly not the habit of study, nor are the points that mathematics and psychology have in common sufficient to account for the difference."

But in the present paper, no more overwhelming instance of effective and valuable functioning of mathematical ideals in a large and important nonmathematical field could be adduced than the stately edifice of modern laboratory psychology itself. If one had to differentiate the newer psychology from the old

1Educative Process, p. 211.

in a word, it would be hard to do so better than by saying that the new psychology aims to work by exact measurements and to interpret the results in the mathematical spirit.

To read modern psychological literature with ease, and particularly the publications that bear on transfer, one must have a certain degree of familiarity with mathematical terms and methods. One finds plenty of tables, graphs, and curves, and quite a sprinkling of formulas. To a superficial observer the books look quite mathematical, and to a closer reader the dominance of mathematical ideals of proof is evident. See, for example, Thorndike's Educational Psychology, or Whipple's Manual. Modern psychology itself is a monumental instance of transfer of mathematical ideals and thought-processes.

II. The edifice of experimental psychology has as one of its foundation stones the assumption that the same mental powers function in varying situations, that mental strength can be transferred from one activity to another and more or less different one. This is quite evident when we consider how psychology, following the example of mathematics, endeavors by making situations abstract, simple, and artificial, to control them more completely in the laboratory than can be done in everyday life. But who that does not believe that the same mental powers are applied in the more complex situations of real life as in counting dots or crossing off a's would stultify himself by professing to test an individual's mental capacity at any given time, or to measure his mental growth from time to time by his success in counting dots? If anyone finds the situations of mathematics artificial and unrelated to real life, how much more so are those of the psychological laboratory. Truly, the child has outdone its parent! The facts of mathematics have a high content value, but what is the content value of counting dots or memorizing nonsense syllables? Having no content value, what other value can the laboratory tests have than to give information as to how the mind would function in the complex situations of everyday, nonlaboratory life? The very existence of an organized body of such laboratory tests as are described in Whipple's Manual voices the belief of its users in the applicability of the powers tested under circumstances that are superficially very different from those of the test.2

2When I say that the existence of the mental tests currently used implies a belief in transfer, I do not refer to the thirty experiments on transfer enumerated in the list of my previous paper. These were undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is any connection between the particular activities tested, and the experimenter does not by implica

III. Not only does the character of the psychological work presuppose belief in transfer, but the frequent use of computation to investigate mental powers that are superficially quite different from computation must needs rest on the belief that the powers applied in these various fields have something of consequence in common with those used in computation. Thus Whipple tells us (p. 461), that the computation test has been employed not merely to study associative processes, but also for the more general purpose of investigating mental efficiency at large. Computation tests have been used to study individual differences in the nature of associative processes; to study the correlation of specific mental functions; to determine the relative influence of heredity and environment upon mental efficiency; to compare the ability of normal, paralytic, and hebephrenic children; to investigate the effect upon mental efficiency of posture, of distraction, of caffein; to investigate the transfer of special drill. "But the commonest application of the computation test has been made in the formulation of the curve of mental efficiency, of the work-curve, with special reference to the influence of practice, rest-pauses, exercise, and similar factors upon the mental efficiency of adults, and especially of children during a school day." In Whipple's Manual, the names of the investigators making the tests are given; in all, forty-four names appear, including repetitions.

IV. The term "formal discipline," or "doctrine of formal discipline," is much used by nonpsychologists and occasionally by psychologists, but always by writers who are disclaiming adherence to the doctrine. I have never found the term used and the doctrine defined by a professing adherent of it. Even opponents seldom set up a careful definition of the doctrine, and when a definition is set up it is done with the avowed purpose of knocking the doctrine down, which operation is then. immediately performed to the entire satisfaction of the operator.

tion commit himself to any attitude on that matter. But when ability in memorizing nonsense syllables is used as a yardstick in educational work, or to help in vocational guidance, then it is obviously assumed that the same memory which is applied to nonsense syllables is also applied in other school work and in vocational activities.

The tests to which I do refer are those of the type listed in Whipple's Manual. These give a far more adequate picture of the psychology of today than the thirty constituting "all the work on formal discipline." Hundreds of titles are entered in Whipple's bibliographies, and the tests described in his work are of the same general type as those in our list.

The underlying assumption of which I have been speaking is put into words from time to time by psychologists. Thus Whipple (p. 3):

"Outside the laboratory an active and very natural interest in mental tests has been exhibited by those who are busy with practical problems to the solution of which the scientific study of mind may be expected to contribute. It is naturally the educator to whom the development of a significant and reliable system of mental tests would most appeal, since he is concerned with the development of just those capacities of mind that the tests propose to measure. Of late, too, hopeful beginnings have been made in application of mental tests to vocational guidance, whether in the selection of people for positions, or the selection of positions for people." (Italics mine.)