the student as a synthesising organism

The Student as a Synthesising Organism.Author(s): James SmallSource: New Phytologist, Vol. 17, No. 8/9 (Oct. - Nov., 1918), pp. 189-193Published by: Wiley on behalf of the New Phytologist TrustStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2428112 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 19:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and New Phytologist Trust are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to NewPhytologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:22:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=npt

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2428112?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. 1 89

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF

ELEMENTARY BOTANICAL TEACHING.

",THE STUDENT AS A SYNTHESISING ORGANISM." lo the Editor of THE NEw PHYTOLOGIST.

DEAR SIR, As a student who is trying to arrive in a particular case at

some knowledge of the significance of morphological and physiological characters, I have been much interested in the previous cor respondence. In my own problem these two sets of characters are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to balance one against the other, and the only sound position seems to me to be that which regards the plant as a whole, as a living organism, living but nevertheless organised.

Until we know the physiology of the plant as completely as we do its morphological organisation there will always be a residual quantity of knowledge which must be taught, if at all, as pure morphology. The physiology which is known seems to me to be inseparably bound up with the organs which carry on such physiological functions. The teaching of all physiology is, there. fore, the explanation of the functions of morphological parts, while the teaching of morphology is the explanation of the structures which carry on known functions, with or without the description of structures of which the function is still unknown. An engineer must know what his machinery does and also the parts of the machinery which act, why they act and what each part does, together with the structure necessary for the accomplishment of the function of each part. Botanical studernts and teachers appeal to be in the same position.

The real difficulty in our case seems to me to be the neglect of the psychology of the student by the teacher. Two of your cor. respondents (NEW PHYTOLOGIST, VOI. XVII, p. 54 and p. 105) have taken proper notice of this factor, and they both plead for freedom. I am in close agreement with both.

A rational solution of the problem can be attained only after an exhaustive treatment of all the known factors. The product of assimilation is a true and accurate knowledge of plants which is capable of application in the various fields of botanical activity; the assimilating organism is the student; the material assimilated



9go " The Student as a Synthesising Organism." can be divided into two classes, facts and theories; the source of the material varies, it may be plants, books or lecture niotes; the synthesising energy is supplied by the teacher.

An assimilating organism is obviously necessary and the proper study of its characteristics is essential to the solution of the problem. That facts are necessary is clear, since without some facts there can be no theories. The necessity of facts can also be demonstrated by placinig the organism in an atmosphere devoid of facts; synthesis of effective knowledge does not take place. The necessity of theories can be shown in a similar way by depriving the organism of its supply of this class of material; with facts present and theories absent the former merely accumulate in the outer regions of the organism and, not being assimilated, the material is not effective in so far as it cannot be applied in the various fields of activity.

The four remaining factors are-plants, books, lecture notes and the synthesising energy. That plants are necessary for the life of the organism is clear, since without plants there could be no botaniical student. The result of varying the supply of plants must be considered. With a quantity just sufficient for the life of the organism, such as is supplied in city schools and tutorial colleges, the organism becomes stunted and develops malformations. The plant material can be classified as non-available, available and excess. The non-available plant material is necessary because it forms the basis of the available material. The available plant material must not be in excess; if it is not aerated with at least a little theory the process of assimilation is stopped. Such material must, however, be present in abundance as the demanid for it by the organism varies greatly from time to time. It is clear, therefore, that the plant material is detrimental only in extreme conditions, and with a normal supply the variations in quantity appear to have little effect on the amount of assimilation.

The book supply is important. If the supply be very small the general health of the organism is affected, but an excess is not detrimental since the organism uses just the amount required for assimilation and life in general, and does not become aware of the presence of a greater supply until the need for such material arises. This is because the book material is of a gaseous or theoretical nature, unlike the plant material which is solid fact.

It is with the two other factors that we are most directly concerned. The lecture note material acts as a limiting factor



Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. I 9 I

within certain limits; even very small quantities may be utilised by the organism and the amount of assimilation varies directly with the supply up to a point where this particular material begins to have a toxic effect on the organism. It is important, therefore, that the supply of this material should be kept below the toxic concentration, which is not very high.

The supply of synthesising energy also acts as a limitinig factor but within wider limits. It is, as a rule, present in very small qtuantity, and the amount of assimilation depends chiefly on this factor. Plants, books and lecture notes are usually present in normal quanitity. Assimilation varies directly with the supply of synthesising energy up to a poinit where the intensity of the energy has a detrimental effect on the organism and tends to burn or shrivel it. This extreme is never reached under natural conditions and occurs only rarely in artificial conditions.

As mentioned aibove the supply of lecture note material has a toxic effect at a comoparatively low concentration, it is clear, therefore, that the synithegising energy is something different in kind. It is supplied by the teacher, and it is or should be the aim of any rearrangement of conditions for the organism to increase the supply of this synthesising energy. We must have teachers who teach because they must tell someone of the many wonderful things they have seen and know, not because the syllabus of a given university contains certain items of fact or theory which must be assimilated in order that the organism may be passed as healthy, after a superficial test by a body of experimentalists who have not as a rule had time to study either the organism or its environment in sufficient detail.

The importance of the supply of synthesising energy acting as a limiting factor cannot be taken too seriously in the present discussion, since it is the factor for which the teacher is directly responsible.

Considering the generation of the energy at its source, it is clear that the radiations will have an illuminating effect only when the enthusiasm of the teacher reaches a red heat, and that the effect will increase as the enthusiasm increases up to white heat. This fact is pointed out by one of your contributors (op. cit. p. 106), and the generation of synthesising energy by enthusiasm is proved by the case he mentions.

The direction of the radiation is another important point; to be effective the radiation must impinge upon the organism.



192 " The Student as a Synthesising Organism."

Here we come to a distinction, not between morphology and physiology but between the morphologist and the physiologist as sources of synthesising energy. The material dealt with by the former is chiefly solid fact, and a very simall proportion of the radiation is deflected to criticism of the work of others. In the latter case the material to be classed as fact is frequently not very solid and much of the material dealt with is theory, so that a large proportion of the radianit energy is deflected to the criticism of the work of other teachers, leaving only a small proportion for trans- mission to the student.

This is unfortuLnate, but it is a fault inherent in the present unsettled conidition of our ktnowledge of physiology. Such mis- direction of energy will remain until the physiologist learns, as the morphologist has done, that although a tlheory may be wrong the facts upon which it is based may be real facts anid, therefore, worthy of careful consideration and incorporation- in owL' current knowledge. This poiilt also explains the relative suLccess of the two schools in their appeal to the student.

In my opinion too many of the recent additions to ouI' knowledge of physiology are regarded as sutitable only for advanced students. If the plaint as a whole is to be taught to elementary students it will be necessary to incorporate many recent advances in physiology in the elementary course. One must, of coutrse, be more or less dogmatic in elementary teachinig, and some recent theories may be dispr oved within a few years. The facts as sttch, however, can always be given, and it develops a healthy point of view in the average elementaily student when he realises that botanists do not know all there is to know about plants.

In this brief and somewhat superflcial analysis of the var'ious factors influencing the assimilation of effective botanical knowledge by the student, no distinction arises between the morphology and physiology of the plant. There may be no magic in words, but I suggest that the desired point of view might be attainied if we had ilo more courses on Morphology, Physiological Anatomy or Physiology and tauglit instead Organography an-d Ecology. Organography might occupy the first year of the pass course and would include the essential parts of much that is now taught concerning the morplhology, anatomy, physiological aniatomy and cytology of all the larger groups of plants, treated from the point of view of causation and function. Ecology might occupy the second yeair and would include the telation of the plant to its



Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teachintg. 193

environment, using en-vironment in its widest senise, and inicluding all the processes connected witlh the assimilationi and utilisation by the plant of food materials, anid the reactions in structure anid in h-ealth of the plant to variations in degree and kind of the supply of these materials. This ecology woLld include the usual syn-ecology anid also aut-ecology, which together with the study of the constitu- tion of the or ganism shouild for-m the basis of any future evolutionary teaclhing.

It wouild be possible to conduct an elementary coui se on similar lines, if, instead of groups of plants, individual species formed the subject of study. The prrinciple of the study of types might be extended and the physiology as well as the morphology and anatomy of the wallflower or sunflower, for example, could be taken firomn germination to seed-formation, the student sowing the seed adti tending and studying the plants at all stages. In this way eveui an elementary student would be given an opportunity of realising the plant as a living and organised individual.

Yours sincerely, JAMES SMALL.

BEDFORD COLLEGE,

REGENT'S PARK, N. W.1.

5th Yiuu'e, 1918.

BOTANY AND THE TEACHING OF BIOLOGY.

To the Editor of THE NEW PHYTOLOGIST.

DEAR SIR, Botanical Bolshevism! If this be intideed an accui'ate

descriPtion of the situation, may we not push the simile a iittle farther and seeli to show that just as political Bolshevism arose as a reaction against intolerable conditions in the body politic so botanical Bolshevism has come into existence because it is actually a fact that "all is not well with the position of academic botany in this country," and that "the existing position is not only unsatisfactory but even dangerous." Grave disordelrs invite desperate remedies! Jesting apart, I feel that botaniists generally are greatly indebted to you for initiating a discussion on "X The Reconistruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching " in THE NEW PHYTOLOGIST, aind for the opportunity which has beer afforded to ventilate all aspects of the subject.



the student as a synthesising organism

Documents