Keith J. Laidler University of Ottawa Ontario, Canada KIN 6N5
All of us who teach are deeply aware of the difficulties that beset us today. There are so very many different ways of teaching, and it is a precarious task to examine all the possibilities and decide on the best procedure. It is my opinion that teaching science effectively is now an even more difficult task than doing good research. Because I think this I feel greatly honored to have received this award in chemical education. The difficulties that face the scientific educator spring from many causes, some of which are related to the educational process itself and others to the subject matter. I shall try to say a few things about both of these aspects. The primary difficulties relating to the educational process result from disastrous decisions made by professional educationalists, many of whom have little experience of real education. As a result of their activities, many students are now being given such a loose, intellectually undisciplined, type of education that we teachers, in schools and universities, are faced with an almost impossible task; a substantial number of students simply do not have the necessary intellectual background for them to he able to learn very much from what we try to teach them. These difficulties could, of course, be remedied, and I shall suggest some remedies later on. The second great problem in scientific education stems from the nature of science itself. There has been an enormous explosion of scientific knowledge in recent years, and there is simply too much to know. I shall later have something to say about how this fundamental difficulty can he to some extent overcome. Many of the comments in my address today will relate not only to chemical education but to education in the other sciences, and indeed some of it will relate to general education. I should like to start with some comments about the subject of chemistry. Chemistry, i t has always seemed to me. occunies a rather central and uniaue ~ o s i tion among the sciences. This is partly because its suhject matter includes material that is hiehlv relevant t o manv other sciences-particularly physics; geology, and the hi;logical and medical sciences, and even including psychology (I). But, more important, chemistry is unique in heing in a delicately balanced position between the quantitative and qualitative aspects of knowledge. There can he no escape from the conclusion that there is a quantitative mode of description, which is particularly applicable to the external world, and a qualitative mode which is dominant as far as the inner world of consciousness is concerned. To some degree the quantitative mode is the domain of science, and the qualitative the domain of the humanities. This statement, however, is an oversimplification, because the arts certainly make some use of quantitative reasonine. ". and some scientific endeavor is entiielv qualitative. Physics, for example, is largely quantitative, and certain areas of biology are largely qualitative. Chemistry lies in between, and for this reason a sound education in chemistry can, I think, contribute very considerably to success in these and other fields, in that i t helps the stu-
. .
Chemical Education Award Address, given at the Regina Meeting of the Chemical Institute of Canada, June, 1974. 696
/ Journal of Chemical Education
Too Much to Know dent to think both quantitatively and qualitatively and to maintain the correct delicate balance between the two aspects. I think that there is a tendency in certain fields, such as engineering, to overemphasize the quantitative. Engineering students are sometimes skillful in dealing with numerical problems hut often have an inadequate appreciation of the important qualitative principles that lie behind them. Those of us who teach chemistry can make a very important contribution to the education of specialists in other fields. This is a matter that is too often forgotten; some teachers of chemistry think that they are just providing the student with skill in chemistry, and overlook the broader aspects. I helieve that there is a t the Dresent time a daneer of confusion in that some people,'impressed with th;! undoubted power of the scientific method but havine little feeling fo> the procedures of practicing scientists,'try to impose quantitative criteria upon qualitative matters to which they are not applicable.-m here is a current tendency to replace a good, hut subjective and qualitative, criterion b y o n e that can be given a numerical measure, and perhaps he fed into a computer. In many instances such quantitative criteria may by all standards be inferior to the qualitative ones. I am thinking, for example, of some of the meaningless questionnaires that are used to assess creativity in research or the quality of education. Those who indulge in these activities are often trying, in the name of obiectivitv. to eliminate the aualitative element. which in many cases is true wisdom. I'helieve that in the teachine of chemistw. with its h a ~ o vblend of the auantitative a i d the we can & much to restore the balance-although I admit that chemists are not immune to the sending out of questionnaires! One thing that I have noticed, both in such questionnaires and in many discussions of the educational process, is that there is much emphasis on some of the more artifical aids to learning, too little heing said about what should he the real aims of education. Some people are spending much of their time thinking about the techniques of the educational process-about audio-visual aids and curriculum details-and too little about what our real ohiectives should be when we heln our students to educate themselves. I deliheratelv said "heln our students to educate themselves" rather-than "help to educate our students," because I am convinced that the educator cannot hope to he more than a catalyst in the educational process. ?'he real business of education must be done by the student himself, the educator's function heing to make the process as efficient as possible. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "You cannot helps man permanently by doing for him something he can do for himself." This theme will run through my talk today. How can we, as educators, best achieve this aim of helping our students to learn for themselves? The first thing that we should do, I think, is to create a serious and scholarly atmosphere, in which the student will really want to educate himself. No satisfactory education is achieved if the teacher rams certain facts and theories into the student and expects him to regurgitate them in the examination. There will presumably be general agreement about this.
However, it does not follow from what I have said that we must plan our courses in schools and universities with the main idea that they should he sheer pleasure. I am afraid that much of this is happening a t the present time-perhans more in schools than in universities. but certainlv to soAe extent in universities. Important subjects that.de. mand serious ~ntellectualeffort are made optional or replaced by something that is easy and entertaining--sometimes with the excuse that i t is more "relevant." We find, for example, solid courses in chemistry, aimed at giving the student a real understanding of the subject, being replaced by much less demanding chemistry courses, perhaps with the justification that they give some insight into environmental or energy resources problems. This is, in my opinion, all wrong. The basic curriculum must not be modified merely to meet the students' desires for something more enjoyable or relevant; it must still meet their real needs, which can be a very different matter. Of course, the techniques by which the student is educated may be, and indeed should be, tailored in such a way as to make the work palatable--even entertaining if that is possible. We must, however, recognize that a certain amount of what is important in education is dull and dreary, and that much of what is important demands hard work from the student. A good student is one with sufficient self-discipline to be able to struggle through the duller patches and reach the promised land beyond. I think that this whole matter of intellectual self-discipline cannot be stressed too strongly. All of us who have participated in any worthwhile endeavor, such as research or writing a hook, know that everything does not run smoothly all the time; there are periods when painful effort is required. I doubt whether anything of significance in this world has ever been accomplished without a certain amount of hard and sometimes unpleasant effort. How regrettable is i t that many of the modern trends in education do not properly reflect this fact? Some of our professional educationalists believe that everything must he made enjoyable; the result is that many students find themselves incapable of making effort when it is required. Most of us are lazy by nature and like to take the easy and enjoyable course; we need some stress from outside if we are to achieve anything worthwhile. The Basic Ingredients of a Scientific Education
I turn now to what I think should be the main ingredients of a sound education in chemistry, indeed of any education. What factors should determine the way in which we should help our students to educate themselves? There are two main choices. We can strive to give our students as much information as possible about the facts and theories of chemistry, or we can strive to provide them with a foundation for dealing with the problems with which they will have to deal in their later careers. There is no doubt a t all in my mind that i t should he the second of these, dealing with prohlems, that should be our main aim. Many people, however, assume nowadays that the first objective, theprovision of information about facts and theories, should be the main aim. In some quarters the mere acquisition of data seems to have become an end in itself. But a little thought tells us that information alone is absolutely sterile. No one has expressed this better than Shakespeare in "Love's Labour's Lost" (2) These ecdfathers of heaven's liehts ~-~earthlv ," " That. riven star. . name to evervfixed , ~~~. Have no more knoaledge of their shining nights Than those that walk and wot nor what they are. Too much to know is to know naught but fame And every godfather can give a name ~~
~
~
~
~~
~
~~~~~~
Too much to know. In this speech, which gave me the title of this address, Shakespeare tells us, with his usual insight and brevity, how useless i t is merely to have a vast
fund of information. The person who has a computer-like mind and can remrgitate factual information has not necessarily acquired any wisdom; as Tennyson put it "Knowledge comes but wisdom lingers" (3). How much truer is this todav than before the recent "ex~losion" of scientific knowledge? In chemistry alone manythousands of research articles are published each month, and no one can possibly read more than a small fraction of them. But reading them in any case would not necessarily make us more competent as scientists. I constantly remind my students that competence in science depends less on how much we know, than on what we can do about the scientific problems with which we are faced. This is particularly evident when we consider that the problems with which we and our students will have to deal 20 or 30 years from now will he very different from those with which we are dealing today. It is difficult for us to look into the future and decide what these problems will be. But if we concentrate on making our students competent in science, rather than on merely providing them with information on facts and theories, we will be equipping them to deal with the problems that will arise. A few years ago the Macpherson Committee of the University of Toronto suggested six possible functions of a university teacher, as follows (4) Providing an overview of a subject Conveying the teacher's enthusiasm for the subject Showing students how to grapple with problems Showinga scholar's mind at work Conveying insights that are unique to the particular teacher Transmitting information The committee concluded, rightly in my opinion, that the last of these. transmittina- information, was the least important function. The remaining functions are important. but I should like to commend two for special consideration: providing an overview of a subject, and showing students how to grapple with problems. At first sight there might appear to he some conflict between these two functions; we seem to be asked to be broad and a t the same time narrow. But there is no real conflict. One should, in teaching science, show the students a smallscale map of the entire area and emphasize to them the overall structure of the subject; they should, so-to-speak, be given a panoramic view. But to do this alone would be unsatisfactory, because vast regions can be known only a t second hand and in a very superficial way. Therefore, as well as showing our students the small-scale maps, we must also show them some very large-scale maps of small areas. The choice of the small areas does not greatly matter, except that one should try to avoid the conventional and look for the controversial. I confess to being a little impatient with those educationalists who, perhaps with the aid of questionnaires, seek to decide on a fixed curriculum for the teaching of, for example, first-year chemistry. This is much less important than letting each teacher present an overview of the subject, the small-scale map, and then concentrate on detailed studies of certain areas in which he is particularly interested. In this way he will help the students to gain a competence in the handling of problems. At the same time the teacher will be conveying to the student some of his enthusiasm for the subject. In giving his overview of the subject the teacher should as far as possible seek to evolve broad general relations between large groups of facts. He should emphasize the essential unity of knowledge and show how an understanding of one area may contribute greatly to the understanding of an entirely different one. In dealing with the detailed studies of selected areas the teacher should try to instill into his students a serious and disciplined attitude of mind so that they are able to forVolume 51. Number 11. November 1974
/
697
mulate a prohlem, to grapple with it, and to arrive at a logical conclusion. He must instruct them in the design of controlled experiments and in carrying them out; he must teach them the techniques for establishing reliable evidence, for drawing logical and honest conclusions from the evidence and, by no means least, he should develop in them disciplined creative imagination. In particular, I would emphasize the importance of teaching our students to distinguish sense from nonsense. If we have accomplished some of these aims we will have led them in the direction of wisdom rather than of mere knowledge; what they will have learned will he of value to them in all fields of intellectual endeavor. In suggesting that the teacher should present an overview of his subject-the small-scale map-and then should show large-scale maps of certain small areas I must make one point clear. There are, of course, in science certain fundamental skills which every student needs to have. There are certain basic facts and principles in chemistry without which we cannot get very far; they are our "stock in trade." I am thinking, for example, of such things as an understanding of chemical structure, of chemical equilibrium, and of the principles controlling the direction and speed of chemical reactions. I am not, of course, suggesting that these aspects can he omitted when the large-scale maps are presented; on the contrary, they must he included in the overview, and must he treated in sufficient depth for the student to gain a competence in these areas. In this connection, one of my main complaints about the "new" mathematics is that it does not nrovide the student with a satisfactorv stock in trade. As n result, we nou, have students coming to thc universities unable LO solve quadratic equations, unable to handle logarithms and indices, and qiite unable to decide, from the form of a mathematical equation, what sort of a plot will yield a straight line. These basic skills are ones that must he covered in mathematics courses, and in chemistry we must also cover certain basic skills. There is one matter about which I have strong opinions, and that is the importance of getting things right. I am constantly heing told by students that in high school their teachers did not mind if they obtained an incorrect numerical answer to a problem, as long as they got the method right. I hope that this attitude is not as prevalent as my students would have me think, because I consider i t to be deplorable. As a result of it, many students are arriving at universities without the ability to carry out a numerical calculation to a satisfactory completion, or to give a coherent and logical account of a subject. They have been encouraged simply to state some kind of theory, but not to follow the matter through. My own attitude is quite different: I maintain that a wrong answer, even if based on correct reasoning, is of no use a t all and that indeed i t can he very dangerous. In teaching premedical students I remind them that a doctor who misplaces a decimal point in prescribing drugs might soon find himself in trouble. There is, I think, an all or none principle in many situations, and this has to he recognized in our methods of education. A surgeon who only knows 80% of how to remove an appendix had better desist from performing the operation, even if he knows the "theory" perfectly. In the same way a student who knows the theory of how to calculate the hydrogen ion concentration of a buffer solution, hut cannot bring the calculation to a successful conclusion, is simply not competent. e a r second-year My own practice in t e a ~ h i n ~ - f & s t - ~and courses in chemistry is to design numerical problems so that the arithmetical work is very simple, and to require the correct answer. Of course, I always make it very clear to the students ahead of time that this is my practice. Some of them find my attitude too demanding, hut many of them respond to it well. I am sure that this practice leads to a considerahle improvement in performance. 698
/ Journal of Chemical Educalion
The Overall Curriculum I turn now to a consideration of the kind of overall curriculum that is desirable, in schools and universities, for those who are going to specialize in scientific subjects. It is most regrettahle that in recent years departments of education have yielded to the pressures of more vocal students, and have replaced the older system of education by a much less disciplined and less structured one. We are now allowing students much more freedom in their choice of courses, with the result that many students, particularly in the schools, are avoiding the suhjects that demand real intellectual effort, and which in fact are the only suhjects that do them any intellectual good. Some of the educational policies that have become so fashionable in the last few years are tending to produce a generation of intellectual lightweights, incapable of thinking precisely about anything, and unable to express themselves articulately even on the few suhjects on which they have some knowledge. I notice with considerable concern that standards are steadily declining year by year. Let me hasten to add that there are still many excellent students in the schools and universities, but I suspect that their ability is not due to the modern educational systems; in many cases these good students owe much of their success to their innate ability and to excellent teachers who have managed to teach well in spite of the departments of education. I believe that educators in schools and universities should fight these modem tendencies by whatever means they have a t their disposal. The schools should exert as much pressure as they can to encourage their science-oriented students to take the solid basic courses in mathematics and science. It is most regrettahle that certain deoartments of education in Canada are allowing their finalyear students to make a choice between physics and chemistry, instead of taking both; as a result the universities are heing forced to accept students who are not fully prepared in the basic sciences. In the same way some universities are allowing a wider choice of first-year courses, and we now see students obtaining degrees in physics or mathematics without having taken any chemistry a t the university level. This kind of over-sp&ialization~ismost unfortunate in the age in which we live, where interdisciplinary knowledge is if such great importance Mathematics and English The two suhjects that should, in my opinion, occupy key positions in any educational system-both in schools and universities-are mathematics and the native language; from now on I shall take this to he English, hut what I say should apply equally well to French or any other first language. The reason that mathematics is so important is that it is one of the best vehicles by which processes of logical thought can he developed. When properly taught, mathematics provides a valuable training of the mind for the solving of problems of all kinds. In my opinion, the old-fashioned mathematics was much superior to the new mathematics in this respect. This is quite obvious to many of us who teach science to university students, in that we have noted during the past years a clear deterioration in the skills with which students can handle scientific prohlems of a mathematical kind. It is, I consider, an international scandal that the mathematicians have been allowed to foist upon the educational world this "new" mathematics, which is much too formalized to provide any real training of the mind. The "new" mathematics may possibly he advantageous for students who have a natural ability for mathematics, but not for the many students who need a more ~ r a c t i c a lapproach. In any case, the more practical approach is better for the student who is going into science or any other field where problem solving is important. I realize that we are probably stuck with this "new" mathematics for years to come although there is some glimmer of hope in that there is a distinct
backlash against it-ven among the mathematicians. There are, I think, useful things that can he done to counterbalance the shortcomings of the new mathematics. The suhject can he enriched by a less formal approach in which some of the methods of the old mathematics are used. In addition, teachers of science should do what they can to introduce some applied mathematics into their courses. The other suhject that must play a central role in education is the study of one's language. The importance of being able to express oneself effectively, in speech and in writine. hardlv needs to be stressed. Yet how had a ioh we are doing a t V t h e present time! Even ~n~lish-spkaking maduate students sometimes have the meatest difficultv Fn explaining their work orally or in a thesis or research publication. The situation with high-school students and undergraduates is, of course, even worse. One of the problems we all face in teaching is that students often ask us completely inarticulate questions punctuated with "like," "you know," "sort of' and expressions of that kind. This is a very serious problem, because formulating the question is a prerequisite to understanding the answer: indeed, formulating a question very often takes us a long way towards discovering the answer. It is therefore a very grave shortcoming that so many of our students are so inarticulate. Whatever they do in later life it is almost certain that they will have to communicate things to others in speech and in writing, and it is most important that we help them to do so effectively. But quite apart from this practical aspect of effective communication, the use of clear and logical language is of great importance in clarifying our thought processes (5). Lord Rutherford used to tell his students that a piece of research is not completed until an account of it has been written up in clear English, and this is certainly my own view. It is undoubtedly true that greater clarity and precision in thinking result from the cultivation of clarity and precision in writing. For writing uses words, and thinking is done with words; one cannot make the most trivial everyday decisions without expressing the alternatives to oneself in words. The discipline of marshalling words into formal and grammatical sentences, writing them down, and examining the written statement, is bound to clarify our thought processes. When ideas have heen written down they can he analyzed critically and dispassionately; they can be put aside and examined a t another time, in another mood, by oneself or someone else. If the thoughts are not precise a t the first written formulation, they can he molded into shape a t later attempts. If woolly thoughts are put down on paper, their woolliness is immediately apparent. For this reason, students should he encouraged to write down their thoughts a t regular stages. In the case of a piece of research, for example, it is better to do this than to releeate the writine to the verv end. because the course of the research wily he greatly-influenced by the clarification that is brought about hv the writinn wocess. In view of this, how important i t is that we kducators in schools and universities should try to instill into our students the skills that are needed for effective communication-the correct understanding of words, the correct use of grammar, and the skillful construction of sentences. The teachers of English can, of course, help greatly, hut we must not leave the matter entirely to them. The art of writing formal essays on abstract subjects is a useful accomplishment, but it is a very different art from that of precise and vivid scientific writing. In writing on an abstract suhject one writes whatever leads to elegant expression, and no one can compare the result with ohjective reality. Scientific writing is essentially more difficult because one must marshal specific and sometimes complicated facts and ideas which cannot he adapted to suit the convenience of style. The difference is like that between the production of an abstract painting and the painting of
a portrait; the criteria of criticism are much more severe for the portrait. To describe and explain is a more exacting exercise than to improvise. At least a part of the teaching of English to science students should therefore he in the treatment of ohiective material. and it is the science teacher who must carry a considerable part of the burden in instilling this particular skill. Aside from this, I cannot forbear to point out that many teachers of English nowadavs e m ~ l o vmethods that leave much to be desired. There ;s an infortunate tendency to decry the teaching of grammar and syntax and to encourage a somewhat breathless and inarticulate form of communication, with the excuse that it is a "natural" form. A short time ago I tuned in the radio to a review of a play, given in this breathless and inarticulate style, with no concessions made to grammar, punctuation, or syntax. I was completely incapable of following the speaker's train of thought. At the end of the talk I was most disconcerted to learn that he was a professor of English who was currently giving a course in communication. I am convinced that the style of communication that he practiced, and presumably taught, is not of any value even for purely literary purposes, and certainly not for scientific work. One cannot write clear English without using the rules of grammar and syntax, just as one cannot make precise measurements with ill-adiusted scientific instruments. Skill in communication comes, of course, not only from writine. hut from readine and from discussion. As Francis ~acon-putit (6), ''Fleading maketh a full man, discourse a ready man and writing an exact man." I wish that these wise words could he engraved on the heart of every student, because they give the best possible advice on how to study. Many modern students neglect the importance of reading. They fail to read the great authors, not realizing that their writings give us the best possible foundation for the writing of precise and vivid scientific essays. And in their scientific studies they are content to read their lecture notes, and fail to delve into the scientific literature. They neglect discourse, by failing to get together in twos and threes to hammer out elusive problems. And they fail to write much except their lecture notes, so that they come to examinations unprepared to explain themselvesperhaps because they have got so used to ohjective trueor-false questions. If we could only instill into our students Bacon's three great virtues of reading, discourse, and writing we would go a long way towards producing some highly competent scientists. The Art of Teaching
There are no firm rules about how to teach; each of us must evolve principles and practices of his own, suitable to his own interests and personality. There are, however, some useful guidelines which are worthy of our consideration, and in the remainder of this address I should like to put forward some of them. I should say at the outset that I am firmly of the opinion that the lecture should he the cornerstone of teaching a t the university level. I find it rather surprising that Dr. Samuel Johnson (7) should have said: "I cannot see that lectures can do as much good as reading the hooks from which the lectures are taken." This seems. with all due respect to the great lexicographer, to suggest a misunderstandine of the relative im~ortanceof ~ r i v a t estudv and of attending lectures. There are many things that aiecturer can do that cannot he done by a hook; in particular a lecturer can explicitly answer questions, and can ascertain, by discussion, just what difficulties his students are having. Lectures must, in my opinion, supplement the reading of books, and this is particularly true in the teaching of science. I agree to some extent with Thomas Carlyle 18) that "A true University of these days is a Collection of Books," and with Stephen Leacock, who said that if he founded a university he would first install a smoking room Volume 51. Number
17.
November 1974 / 699
("discourse a ready man"), then a library ("reading maketh a full man"), and finally hire some professors. But I think that a university really needs all of these features. There are several important ingredients of a good lecture course, and careful attention must be paid to each of these in its preparation The subject matter that is included The organization of the subject matter The words that are used in presenting the material The use of audio-visual aids, such as the blackboard and public address system The delivery of the lecture: the mast important aspect of this is the effective use of the voice An excellent lecture course will he excellent in all five of these aspects. It will only be acceptable if it reaches a minimum standard in all of them. Excellence in one or two cannot overcome complete inadequacy in any one of them. I have already said a number of things that relate to the suhject matter of a lecture course. I have emphasized the importance of giving an overview of a subject-the smallscale maps-and of then covering some areas in much more detail. I have also spoken of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of chemistry, and I think i t is worthwhile to try to blend these two together in a lecture course. Rather than making one lecture entirely mathematical and another entirely descriptive, it is helpful to try as far as possible to include the two aspects in a given lecture. This is important in allowing the students to compare and interrelate the two aspects. It also has the advantage of lending variety to the lecture, making it more interesting. In seeking t& right level for a course i t is by no means necessarv for the teacher to avoid r e ~ e a t i n esome material that the-students have heard before: No one can properly appreciate a difficult subject the first time it is ~resented: all need to go over certain things again and again in order to grasp them completely. There is an amusing story told of the physicist Arnold Sommerfeld, who wrote lucid books on every subject in physics except thermodynamics. When asked why he did not write on that field he replied somewhat as follows
we
Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through the subject, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to the subject that it doesn't bother you any more. In view of this comment we should not necessarily be too concerned when students complain that we are teaching material that they have "had" before; unless they are cleverer than Sommerfeld it does not hurt them to "have"
700
/ Journal of Chemical Education
it again. I always quote this comment of Sommerfeld before emharkine on lectures in thermodvnamics. because I think it impoGant that the students &in some appreciation of the learning Drocess that is involved. particularlv in connection with-chis rather difficult subject. I always go over the main points of thermodynamics a number of times. The learning process is such that we all profit by hearing things several times-if only because, as Sommerfeld put it in the passage I quoted, one gets used to difficult material so that i t does not bother one any more. The reviewing of material in a course, particularly the most difficult parts, is theiefore an important aspect of the teaching process. This, incidentally, is one great advantage that a lecturer has over the writer of the textbookthe ability to repeat himself. The writer of a hcok cannot repeat himself too much without being tedious; indeed he does not need to, because the reader can always reread something he has not understood. A listener, however, cannot do this, and a lecturer should, therefore, place emphasis on important matters by a certain amount of repetition. My final comment is addressed not only to high school and university teachers of chemistry, but to all teachers of all subjects. I think that it is more important today than ever that we should all strive to maintain standards a t a high level. I am not suggesting, of course, that we should make our teaching so advanced that we lose most of our students. I am suggesting that we should set our sights high, and should then do everything in our power to help our students to reach the standards that we have decided upon. A course that is conceived in this way, with a very definite academic objective, will he much more effective then one that is "played by ear," with no clear-cut aims. The main theme of my talk is that there is today, in science, too much to know, and that careful consideration of this should dominate our strategy and tactics in teaching our students. Perhaps I may fittingly end with a quotation from the Anatole France Do not tw to satisfv. vour . vanitv, bv. teachine,. a ereat .. man" thines. n~ itudcnrs rurinsity. I t is enough t u open their minds. without overlonrling t h e m . I'ut :ntn them ju,t a spark; if t h e r e :s some inflammable ?tuff > I wrll catrhfrre ~
Awaken your
Literature Cited I I b r , lor r.rmp1e. P..cxne,r polnled o,, ih" clwe r,~lnt,lnshlp b.l*e." rcrlaln a,. wcrs ,,I~~w?hnlt'm and rhon#csl &~nr.rw, K .I l.a#d.cr,,I
