EDUCATION

Devoted to the Science, Art, Philosophy and Literature

of Education

VOL. XXVIII

APRIL, 1908

No. 8

I

"How to Teach" Series

I

Teaching Physiology

FRANK OVERTON, A.M., M.D., PATCHOGUE, N. Y.

N such subjects as arithmetic and geography teachers are pretty well agreed on a course of study in which definite things shall be taught in each year of school, but in the only subject which the law says must be taught there is a lack of agreement among authorities. No two outlines of physiology study agree either in choice of subjects or in the order of their presentation. Since there are so many physiological subjects that are important enough to be taught it is impossible to cover all of them, and some range of choice must be allowed. But just as in arithmetic certain fundamental subjects must be studied as a basis for advanced work, so in physiology there are elementary topics on which the whole science of physiology rests. Fortunately the topics which are necessary are not difficult of understanding by a child, in spite of a considerable authority to the contrary.

In arithmetic each subject from addition up to alligation forms a stepping-stone to the next topic. So far as a scholar goes he has in mind a logical science of arithmetic. If he does

not know a considerable about the scientific side of arithmetic he cannot do the most elementary sum. Mere telling how to do a sum parrot fashion is not sufficient for even a hod carrier's arithmetic. He must use an appreciable amount of logic and science to obtain practical results in his simple calculations. This analogy holds true in physiology. Experience has amply demonstrated that mere hygienic advice is seldom put to use in daily life, and it certainly leads to no knowledge of physiology as a science. Authorities say that, in the first years of school, hygiene only should be taught; but they also say parenthetically that only enough physiology and anatomy should be taught to enable the pupil to comprehend the reasons for the hygienic advice, thus unwillingly admitting the necessity for scientific physiology and anatomy. As a matter of fact the better elementary text-books are three fourths physiology and anatomy, and only one fourth hygiene.

From a perusal of the literature of physiology teaching one would be likely to get the idea that it is wrong to teach scientific physiology to lower grades. Whether it is right or wrong depends on the kind of science that is doled out. The kind that confines itself to logical classifications and long words is surely wrong, but the kind that explains the elementary processes of the body in familiar terms is surely commendable. No kind of technical science has a place in the grades, least of all, technical physiology. The trouble is that many teachers are unable to recognize science when it is presented in a homely and familiar garb. To such teachers the tiny projections that an ameba puts out are not arms, but pseudopodia, as if calling them false feet were better than calling them plain Of course authorities forbid teaching this long-named physiology to the grades.

arms.

THE PRACTICAL USE OF SCIENTIFIC PHYSIOLOGY

The object of teaching physiology or any other subject in school is to develop a knowledge which may be put to use directly or indirectly in daily life. In primary grades emphasis is justly laid on hygienic advice, just as in arithmetic the processes of addition are taught with little explanation. Yet, for

instance, very early in the course of arithmetic there is taught prime factoring—a process of which the average citizen has little use, or even knowledge, and which, nevertheless, is absolutely necessary for any student who handles fractions. The majority of citizens are woefully weak in fractions, but still the foundation principle of prime factoring is taught to every pupil, not as a sugar-coated bit of advice, but as downright, hard, mental work. When the pupil has grasped the principle the solution of simple problems that involve fractions becomes a delight.

This analogy holds good in physiology. Certain fundamental principles should be taught from the primary class up through the high school. Dwelling on hygiene alone results in a useless concoction of almanac advice and pseudoscience, while emphasizing the scientific side alone feeds the mind on the dry bones of science, and kills the child's natural love for biological work. The teaching of physiology in the lower grades should impart an elementary knowledge of living processes which the pupil may apply both in the care of his own body, and also in nature study. It should prepare him for living a healthy, physical life, and for enlarging his mental life by an appreciation of the life actions of the living things around him. It must be confessed that the method too often followed of killing time in compliance with the letter of the law results in a failure of both objects.

THE RELATION OF PHYSIOLOGY TO NATURE STUDY

Under the title, nature study, is grouped all the science subjects in the lower grades, but physiology is the only branch that is systematically studied. Nature study should be an introduction to the study of biology and physics in the upper grades, and the lessons should be arranged with that object in view. This is analogous to the relation of physical geography to commercial geography and geology. Physiology is a branch of nature study, and should lead up to botany and zoology in the upper grades. If teachers were conscientious in their teaching while complying with the compulsory temperance teaching law, they would find ample time to develop the scientific as

well as the sentimental side of hygiene. Probably there is no branch that is naturally more attractive to children than physiology. If less ground were covered, but more thoroughly and conscientiously, the pupil who has pursued physiology through the lower grades should approach the high school with a love for biological branches and with a knowledge of the elementary processes of life in both animals and plants. The fact that the great majority of pupils never reach the high school is an additional reason why the instruction in the only science that they will ever get should be conscientious and scientific.

THE PHYSICIAN AS A PHYSIOLOGY TEACHER

From a physician's point of view a correct knowledge of the science of physiology as distinguished from its sentimental and hygienic application is of the greatest value. He must often gratify his patient's desire to know reasons for his opinion and advice, and often he is compelled to put forth all his reasoning and persuasive powers in order to get his patients to follow necessary advice. He is thus a teacher of physiology as well as of personal hygiene, and is the man who is best qualified to say what is best to teach. As a matter of fact physicians have a low opinion of the value of average school instruction in physiology, and often find it of little use. For instance, to patients with a pain in the side the doctor must correct the most glaring errors as to what organs lie in the vicinity of the pain, and as to what effect the cessation of function in an organ might have on the body. Another instance is the great prominence given by teachers to the pancreas. True, it is the chief of the organs which produce digestive secretions, but from a medical standpoint it is unessential, for it so rarely gets out of order that medical students forget it after they pass their examinations in physiology. It is a waste of time to demonstrate its functions after pepsin digestion has been studied.

Four ideas which a physician would deem necessary in the understanding of the most primary physiology are the cell theory, oxidation, normal appetites and infection. It would be well if all these four points were emphasized in all grades of school.

THE CELL THEORY

In the older text-books stress used to be laid on the wonderful great things in the body, while about the only wonderful small things mentioned were the blood corpuscles. This attitude should be reversed. An understanding of the tiny unit of the cell is essential in the understanding of any part of the body, and of any branch of biological science. Teaching physiology without dwelling on the cell is a relic of premicroscopic days, and is like teaching optics in the dark. Medicine, zoology, botany and evolution are all founded on the cell, and the idea permeates all the literature of natural science. Every man and woman who reads should be familiar with the idea of a cell, and to be ignorant of it is like reading United States history in ignorance of George Washington.

One reason assigned for the omission of cells in teaching young children is that it is too difficult a subject. Yes, it is difficult for a teacher who knows nothing of a cell to teach the cell theory, but such a teacher should not blame the pupil. Yet it is a matter of experience to find that untrained teachers who earnestly try to teach about cells succeed to a remarkable degree. Third-grade children are intensely interested in cells. They will see the cells in the tissues which are shown to them under the microscope, as is proved by their unprompted drawings which they make after a look into a microscope. Moreover, untrained teachers who have followed an outline of lessons in which cells were emphasized in every lesson, report that their pupils show a maximum degree of interest in the lessons, and pass with honor the regular old-time examinations on hygiene, although hygienic advice was a minor part of the curriculum. Personifying the cells, and calling them the "Workers of the body," aids the child's comprehension of the subject.

Another reason why the cell theory is not taught, is because text-book makers have slavishly followed the models of older books which were made before scientists thought in terms of cells, or microscopes became the property of every village school. Not only did the older books omit the discussion of cells, but their illustrations of tissues were unlike anything ever seen under a microscope. It is no wonder that teaching the