Repazt
of the
NBW BNGLAND ASSOFIATION of CllBMlSTRY TEACAER.S Individual Versus Demonstration Method of Teaching Science' FRANCIS G . LANKFORD, JR. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
F.
OR AT least the third time many teachers of chemlstry are forced to consider whether or not they may safely substitute demonstrations for individual student laboratory exercises. This time the difficulty of providing equipment has stimulated discussion of the qnestion, rather than any belief that individual exercises should be replaced by demonstrations. During the 1920's greatly increased high-school enrolments stimulated studies of methods of instructions that might prove less costly than the individual laboratory exercise. Downing2in 1925 and Rierle13 in 1927 summarized some of these early studies. Both summaries pointed to the inconclusiveness of the evidence. Nevertheless, many school systems substituted demonstrations for individual laboratory work and quoted these studies to justify the change. The depression of the 1930's again made it difficult to provide adequately in school budgets for science equipment. The results were described by Professor Francis D. Curtis in 1934 in an address before the North Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. He stated that "to the consternation of teachers of science, both in secondary schools and in college, the individual method has been eliminated entirely in an alarming number of schools, its place having been taken by the demonstration method or by classroom activities which include no use of apparatus whatever." The present world-wide conflict has reduced the supplies of equipment and materials. This situa. . .-An abstract of an address given a t the Fourth Summer Conference of the New England Association of Chemistry Teachers, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, August 12, 1942. * DOWNING,"A comparison of the lecture-demonstration and the laboratory methods of instruction in science," School Reuinu, 33,68&97 (1925). RIBDEL. "What, if anything has really been proved a s to the relative effectiveness of demonstration and laboratory methods 27, 512-19, 620-31 in science?" School Science end A~alhemalics, (1927).
tiou causes us again to ask whether or not we may use demonstrations instead of individual laboratory work. In a more recent study Carpenter4 concludes that pupils taught by demonstrations succeed as well as when they perform the exercises individually. He recommends an increase in the number of demonstrations but thinks that individual laboratory work in chemistry should be continued. Horton5amved a t the conclusion that "pupils on the whole preferred individual work," which may well account for a better performance from them. Zimefound that pupils preferred ( a ) doing experiments, ( b ) watching movies, and (c) watching experiments. Payne7 found among college students that the poorer students made better progress by the lecture-demonstration method. Stuit and Engleharts concluded that the problem seems yet to be unsolved and as complex as ever. A summary of some of the points made by Curtisg in the "31st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I" presents a careful and accurate analysis of the research on our problem. 1. Each method offers training in certain knowledges, skills, and habitsnot offered by the other. 2. In the interests of economy, both of time and money, i t seems desirable to perform more laboratory exercises by the demonstration than by the individual method.
'
CTJR:!~, "Second digest of investigations in the teaching of sciences, Blakiston, Philadelphia, 1939, pp. 2 8 2 8 9 . Ibid.,pp. 299-311. VIM, "Science interests and activities of adolescents," Ethical Culture School, New York, 1940. CURTIS,"Third digest of investigations in the teaching of science." Blakiston. Philadelohia. 1939. DD. 402-6. ~mrrAND ENGELEAR
