tion to nature's modes of teaching. Observe how the perceptive powers are awakened and cultivated, how dexterity is imparted to the fingers, how ideas of size, shape, color, order and neatness are developed, how these methods of training are adapted to those characteristics of child-nature which we see manifested in its love of activity, and its desire to do what it sees others doing.

Now follow the child as he enters the Primary School, where his powers of observation are developed by object-lessons. See how the instruction deals with familiar things as a means for leading him to understand other objects about which he already knows but little. Observe the manner in which the first steps are taken in learning his own language in its printed form. In stead of dealing with the elements of form alone-the letters,-the child is at once introduced to the word as a sign or name of some common object. This is first learned as a whole word, and then followed by other words in the same manner. In addition to learning the words as wholes, by their form, the pupils are taught to recognize the sounds as heard in the spoken word, then to know the characters or letters that make the written word. But during all this process of learning, the real things and acts and qualities and thoughts represented by the words learned are kept most prominently before the pupil's mind. And in all subsequent stages of learning to read the pupils are required to regard thoughts, ideas and facts with more attention than words; also to express the thoughts with easy conversational tones of voice. This child's instruction in number commences by training him to count objects, then to recognize and make the figures which stand for the numbers of things counted. When he is ready to commence addition, at first he is trained in familiarity with the results of combined numbers until he knows instantly that 7 and 5, when added, will always give a 2 in unit's place; that 9 and 7 always give a 6, whether in 17 and 9, or 29 and 7, or 77 and 9. By this means the common fault of combining numbers by counting is readily overcome.

Thus in every department of arithmetic, by the methods of objective teaching, the pupils are first trained by the use of objects, familiar experiences and blackboard illustrations to understand those principles that pertain to the matter under consideration, and subsequently they are directed to study the same subject from text-books; afterward rules, recitations, reviews and examinations appropriately follow. Each subject of school instruction may be presented in a similar manner.

Let it be distinctly understood that it is far from our purpose to claim that either objective teaching or oral instruction alone, or both together, should displace all use of text-books in school. The true office of these methods of teaching is to prepare pupils for the proper use of books. School life is far too short to make it possible for each individual pupil to acquire one-tenth of the most important facts direct from nature, or from a teacher's lips, which the world's cheerful observers have collected, even during the present century, and classified into the various sciences now recorded in our text-books. Besides, children need to be trained to habits of learning from books, that with their aid they can continue the study of nature and science after the teacher's guidance has ceased. Moreover, we do not understand objective teaching to mean that the method of instruction shall always employ objects, nor that it shall exclude text-books; rather that it should so adapt training exercises to whatever subject may be in

troduced as to fit the pupils for learning by the aid of systematic observation, oral instruction, apparatus and books, all combined, in a most thorough man

ner.

Object-teaching ought to precede all use of books, and be continued in such a way as to join in a life-long union the study of nature and art without and with books; each contributing its due proportion to the combined stock of knowledge.

Those who carefully observe the general progress of education, and note the tendencies of the times in relation thereto, are well aware that each year shows an increased attention to the study of nature, through what are commonly known as the natural sciences. After long years of persistent memorizing of rules and definitions in grammar, which are seldom used in after life, as the correct use of language comes chiefly from habit rather than rules; and after months spent in learning the names of rivers and capes, and mountains and towns, without understanding their relations to the world, its people and productions, it has come to be admitted that there are other subjects which have just as intimate relations to the affairs of daily life, and which are far more interesting and easily understood by children, that ought to and may easily receive more attention. Not only are children deeply interested in natural objects the leaves, flowers, fruits, birds, quadrupeds and insects-which they see around them, but it has been found that attention to these objects furnishes the best means for developing their observing powers, and storing their minds with facts that will prove useful during all subsequent life. By early attention to such natural subjects, in a proper manner, children become more thoroughly prepared to profit by instruction in language, geography, grammar, etc.

Living, moving forms possess the greatest attractions for children. The life and motions exhibited in the animal world, corresponding with the activity of childhood, place animals among the earliest and most interesting objects that awaken the curiosity of the young; hence they furnish materials admirably adapted to cultivating their perceptive faculties, and forming habits of attentive observation.

One of the chief difficulties in the way of giving profitable attention to natural history in our common schools, especially in the department of zoölogy, has been the fact that a sufficient number and variety of animals could not be seen alive, nor stuffed specimens provided to such an extent as to afford an opportunity for systematic instruction in accordance with that method which AGASSIZ assures us is the true way to obtain knowledge from nature, viz., observation and comparison.

But I trust the time is not far distant when correct representations of birds, and quadrupeds, and reptiles, and insects, and plants, arranged with the view of facilitating observation and comparison, at least so far as relates to the most important of those characteristics by which animals are classified and their habits learned, will be prepared in such a way as to render the study of natural history, in its elementary stages, as practical and easy as that of geography is

now.

I conclusion, I will briefly indicate the proper extent of objective teaching. Let the instructive amusements of the kindergarten receive children first from their mother's arms; let the training exercises of objective teaching meet

them as they leave the threshold of home for school, and lead them in the pleasant ways of knowledge, opening their eyes to behold the beauties of nature, and developing their powers of learning while they are taking the elementary steps in our written language, and in the science of numbers, in the qualities and properties of objects, and in the habits of animals and plants. Then oral instruction, uniting with objective training, will conduct them in simple paths of science, and direct their steps until tastes and habits and judgment may safely assume their guardianship in subsequent pursuits of knowledge from nature and books.

Objective instruction can most successfully open the portals of science and guide the early steps of those who enter therein. It will prepare pupils for learning readily from all sources, and lead them to seek books from a desire to know what others have discovered in nature. By it the elementary steps in knowledge can be taken most nearly as the child would learn the same subject from objects with only nature for its guide. It adapts the subject and the manner of instruction to the mental conditions of pupils in all their varying aspects. No text-book can successfully meet these different conditions; only the living teacher can so present the matter of instruction as to harmonize in time and manner with their needs.

In the various stages of school instruction, whatever may be the subject, let the teacher prepare the pupils for studying it by introducing it orally, and, whenever necessary, illustrating its chief points so that these shall be clearly understood by them; then assign the same subject as a lesson to be studied in the text-book, and afterwards recited by them and further explained by the teacher. By this means, habits of giving more attention to facts and ideas, to the mere forms of language, will be formed, and the student's progress in knowledge will be thorough, practical, and rapid.

To know is a great attainment. To know how to do is a high art. The first comprises knowledge; the second, the ability to use it. To secure the great attainment is the first duty of the teacher. To master the high art is of equal importance; it makes the first valuable, and insures success in its use.

It is strangely curious that the doing of the same thing may be both easy and difficult-easy when done in the right way; difficult when done in the wrong way. Success attends the doing in the right way, failure is sure to follow the doing in the wrong way. Let teachers remember their first duty in regard to methods of instruction-to know which ones are in harmony with nature; also take due care in so attending to the second as to master the high art of using these methods in the best manner, and a crown of success shall be their reward.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. Z. Richards, late Superintendent of Public Schools in Washington, opened the discussion as follows:

There are two reasons why I am encouraged to enter upon the discussion of this somewhat hackneyed subject.

First, there are strong indications that the real merits and importance of this subject are neither properly understood nor appreciated by very many teachers and school-officers.

Second, there are many who believe that it is high time there should be a radical change in the present modes of organizing, teaching and conducting the primary or lowest grades of schools.

Let us consider the first proposition for a short time.

I have found many school-officers and teachers who are decidedly opposed, as they say, to "object teaching." They seem to think they have good reasons for their opposition, such as that it is unphilosophical, unnatural and unpractical; and that it has been proved to be unsuccessful.

But if in either of these respects it has been found wanting, it has been owing to the ignorance and stupidity of its advocates, or the superficial and inadequate examination into its true merits.

It may be safely asserted that those persons who do not understand and appreciate the "objective mode of teaching" do not understand the real nature of teaching.

What, then, is teaching? Others may differ from me; but the best answer I can give is, that it consists in imparting knowledge directly to others, or in helping them to acquire it themselves. Teaching is some times considered the same as learning, or making scholars study. We some times hear teachers talk about learning their scholars, when they do not mean knowing them, as well they might, for they ought to know them better. Teaching is not learning; neither is learning the same as studying. We learn, it is true, by studying, and also by being taught. Children, at first, must learn by being taught what they need to know; and teaching must be continued until the pupil can acquire knowledge by study, and by personal effort. Indeed, children must be taught how to study, and how to make proper efforts to acquire knowledge; and this is the work of the teacher.

Again, we often hear it said that teachers should make their pupils study; but it is a great mistake to suppose that untaught children are capable of studying. They must learn by being taught, before they will be capable of studying. They can neither study, nor gain knowledge from books, nor from observation, until they have learned how to do it; and they must learn how by being taught.

A child can neither gain knowledge from books nor from nature, until he has learned how to read and understand both books and nature herself.

Here, again, we may see the work of the teacher. How absurd, then, is the practice of requiring untaught children to study lessons, when they can not study. They may be required to memorize lessons, which is neither studying nor necessarily learning. But the utility of memorizing is indeed doubtful; in fact, the usual practice of memorizing is positively injurious. Is it not, then, evident that children must learn at first chiefly by being taught? and do not the foregoing thoughts exhibit the real nature of the work of teaching?

Now I am prepared to assert and to prove that the only true method of teaching is the "objective method."

Knowledge is made up of impressions upon the mind; and those impressions are made almost exclusively by external objects upon the physical senses; or we may say they are derived from external sources: 1st, from material objects: 2d, from the expressed thoughts of others; and 3d, from the results of our own thoughts.

Though an idea may be derived from matter, it by no means follows that an idea is material; neither that it is independent of internal consciousness, any more than is an idea derived from spirit, from abstract thought, or from the relation of results. Ideas or thoughts can be communicated to others; and words or names are used chiefly as the representatives of ideas. The work of the teacher is to communicate ideas, and then to present the proper words to represent these ideas. This is teaching, which every child must have, in order to learn. It comes not by study.

Herein consists the philosophy and nature of the objective method of teaching. Suppose we desire to communicate what may be properly called abstract ideas. Let us take impenetrability for instance. We wish the pupil to get for the first time the idea that "two bodies can not occupy the same space at the same time." The common and almost universal method of making pupils get this idea is to make them commit the words to memory. This is not teaching. It is the worst kind of cramming. But let the teacher procure two balls, each of which will exactly fill the same cup, and, after putting each ball into the cup in sight of the pupil, try to put both into it at the same time; or fill the cup with water, and then let the pupil see that all the water is displaced by putting in one of the balls. The pupil receives the idea, which may be then given in the above words. This idea then becomes knowledge, which has been derived from two or three material objects, and which was not derived from memorizing the definition, and never could have been, without an objective demonstration. The idea is abstract, and is not derived from the seeing either of the balls or of the cup, but from the use which is made of them. This is the objective method of teaching, and in this case is really the only rational method. But in a similar manner a knowledge of almost any abstract principle, law or quality may be acquired by teaching. Take one more illustration. A child on seeing an apple may say it is sour or sweet; or, on looking at it, he may say it is round, or red; or, on feeling it, that it is hard or soft, etc. His ideas of these qualities of the apple are not derived from the apple itself, but from comparing its various qualities with the corresponding qualities of another apple. The idea of sourness or sweetness is gained by comparing the different sensations produced upon the organs of taste.

The above illustrations are enough for my present purpose; and hence, I conclude that nearly, if not quite, all of the knowledge of any practical use to us is derived from objects, or from external sources.

We all have within us a conscience, which teaches us that there is a right and a wrong; but to know what particular thing is right or wrong, we must for the most part resort to proofs outside of ourselves. Such proofs may be styled objective proofs, and they constitute the "objective method."

As it can be thus shown that almost all knowledge is acquired upon the "objective method," I think the conclusion is inevitable that all teaching should be conducted upon the "objective method"; and that there is no true teaching without it.

The time allotted to me, on this occasion, will not permit me to elaborate my second proposition, which appears to me quite as important as the first; for if the radical change needed in the present modes of organizing, teaching and conducting our primary schools could be realized, we should need no other