If conditions prevent the carrying out of such a method to the extent I have indicated, the next best arrangement would seem to be a genuine cooperation between the teachers in the classroom and in the laboratory.

PROFESSOR DATES: Some men are in favor of using the regular laboratory textbooks. Most of these books on the market are quite profuse. They go into the theory of experiment and the whole direction for performing it, etc. The other method that some adopt is to do away with the use of the textbook and make use of notes given by the lecturer in mimeograph notes, leaving a certain amount of work to be done by the student. It seems to me the objection is that men rely upon this guide in the laboratory too much. The problem arising with the second matter is a sufficient amount of knowledge to do their work successfully. They get a certain amount of reference work in advance. We have adopted the policy in our laboratory of largely doing away with the use of textbooks, and requiring a certain amount of reference in work, aiming not to tie men up to any one of the methods, but to have them state the preliminary references on the subject and then go in and do the work. We feel that this develops the individual man and puts the problem to him in a better way than the textbooks, which tell him too much, and leave little or nothing for his own working out. I would ask Professor Schuster what method he pursues in his very successful work.

PROFESSOR MORGAN BROOKS: There is still another kind of laboratory work-practice in operation, or

imitating central station conditions. For example, training a student to transfer a load quickly from one dynamo to another without noticeable disturbance; also charging a storage battery by the several commercial methods required in practice under service conditions. The student not only gains facility in operation, but is interested in the methods that may be devised to improve central station service.

PROFESSOR SCHUSTER: There are one or two points I would like to take up briefly in closing the discussion. One is with reference to the number of students in the laboratory. My experience has been different from that of Professor Radtke. As far as the number of men who can be supervised at one time by any one instructor is concerned, I should very much rather supervise ten men in direct-current work than an equal number in alternating-current work. Of course, for the first two or three periods it might be more difficult to supervise the beginners until the men had learned the arrangement of the apparatus and circuits in the laboratory. In our laboratory I have always tried to arrange the alternating-current men in sections of six, while in the direct-current work they sometimes run up to ten, and occasionally twelve or fourteen. But that is not common.

In regard to the question raised as to the students depending upon one another, of course, that is something you cannot get away from. In the division we make in our laboratory we allow the students to select their partners and they are usually pretty well mated. In order to get good results from the poor man, we try in every way to correlate our work, and

the instructor in the classroom, as well as those in the laboratory, try to build up a sentiment in favor of doing the work for the work's sake, and not for the credit they will get for the result. We are able to get quite satisfactory results from the slow man by asking him questions and giving occasional suggestions during the experimental work. I intended to cover that, in a way, by what I have said about qualities of instructors. The instructors should know just what the men are doing and how they are getting on with the work at all times. They can tell this very closely by keeping on the alert, and knowing what connections have been made, etc., without doing very much in the way of questioning the student. The questioning of the student, and teaching him at the time just what he ought to observe, is likely to develop in the student a dependence that the instructor should avoid, and it does not develop men as laboratory work ought to develop them. If the instructor keeps in touch with the student in his conferences on original outlines and final reports, he can find out what the man knows about his subject, and if it seems necessary the student should be required to repeat the experiment until he understands it. In regard to the textbook question, we have used a textbook to a considerable extent for laboratory work, due to the fact that as a rule the instructors have not had time to give the attention which outlines would require. A certain amount of work has been done by outlining the work and giving the references and having the students prepare their outlines and arrange for their work. I recommend this as being the preferable

method, if there is sufficient time available to both the instructor and the students. I have followed it to a considerable extent. In regard to Professor Brook's suggestion, that is simply a detail as to assignments of work. I remember a time when some students of mine wanted to do work similar to that which Professor Brooks outlined, and they put in two and a half days during a vacation in making up the connection for one single experiment. When they had finished they had most of the apparatus in the laboratory in operation.

one.

PROFESSOR RADTKE: Perhaps I did not emphasize sufficiently the statement that the electrical engineering course, or any engineering course, is not a final The student has then about completed his theoretical training, and he is going to make an application of it. His success depends on whether he can connect up what he has learned with what he will find in engineering practice. Special attention should be paid to ensure to the student having developed his power and ability to correlate his theoretical training to its application.

BASIC PRINCIPLES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF

A TEXTBOOK.

BY S. E. SLOCUM,

Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Cincinnati.

The most promising feature of modern scientific and technical education is the widespread and growing interest in the improvement of present methods of instruction. This agitation for improved pedagogic methods is not confined to any one locality, but is general throughout England, Europe and America. It is, in fact, a manifestation of the modern spirit which tends increasingly to specialization, and which has classified teaching, among other professions, as a science rather than an art.

In common with all great truths, the fundamental principles underlying scientific pedagogy are characterized by two distinctive features, simplicity and naturalness. In the engineering profession it has long been recognized that the sole function of the engineer is the utilization of natural forces in the simplest and most efficient manner. By reason of the fact that mental processes are more elusive than physical, this idea has been longer in penetrating the teaching profession. Its acceptance, however, lies at the basis of scientific pedagogy, and it is now generally recognized that the chief aim of the teacher, whether in the class-room or through the textbook, is not merely to impart information, but to direct natural thought processes to a particular end.