The authors attempted to examine the pupils of a primary school in both science and mathematics. In this examination, they paid special attention to testing their ability of scientific thinking and extracted the factors constituting the structure of science and mathematics from the above result. This. is the consequence which could be gained through these factor analysis. (1) Four are extracted as factors of ability of scientific thinking in science and mathematics, that is, Ability of Recognizing Space (a), Ability of Inductive Thinking (b), Ability of Deductive Thinking (c), Ability of Analytical Thinking (d), (2) By comparing these results with the factors of ability of scientific thinking in science only (this report IV), they come to the conclusion that the factor a, b and care common factors in both report IV and V. In these factors, factor a is the first factor in the factors of ability of scientific thinking in both science and mathematics but the last factor in the factors in science only. (3) By comparing these results with the classification of mathematical thinking by Mr. Norinobu Azemori, they find that the factors of ability of scientific thinking are correspond to the many factors of mathematical thinking.

Summer Science Institutes for talented high school students have increased rapidly in number during recent years in U.S. A. The range of the activity of this summer program is quite extensive. Hundreds of interested colleges, universities, and non-profit research organizations located all over the United States --- from Hawaii to Massachusetts --have designed special courses for high school students. Financial support for many of the programs has been obtained partly from such sources as the National Science Foundation and partly from the student themselves. This study was designed to make clear the nature of these Summer Science Programs. It seems to the writer that the results may be summed up as follows; -- (1) Goals of the program The common aim of these programs is to encourage the scientific interests of highly talented secondary school students by providing them with opportunities to participate in study and research programs set up especially for them. (2) Organization of the program. The summer institute is to be in session for five to ten weeks in duration. This institute is consisted of the various courses, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Zoology, Anthropology and Psychology. The instructor should be energetic, primarily a research worker, with a good back ground in teaching as well. The members are professors of Science, high school science teachers, including terminal year graduate students and the personnels from the Museum. (3) Selection of participants Student participants are supposed to be selected according to their performance on a mental ability test, achievement test scores, high school records, and recommendations by high school teachers and principals. The applicant should be entering the 10th or 11th grade of the high school. (4) Course Content The first week of eight or ten weeks is mainly spent for organization and orientation, and a daily schedule of the activities which should proves effective may include the following: 1. The lecture and seminar is conducted by the course instructors from 9 to 12 A. M. daily, Monday through Friday. 2. Laboratory works are conducted daily from 1 P. M. until 5 P. M. Students should be encouraged to do some project of their own. Since this project should be com plated within a six-week period, it is most expedient for the instructor to suggest a number of research possibilities. 3. Evening seminars are occationally conducted on an informal basis.

A Simplified manual polarograph has been prepared and tested. This apparatus offers an accurate and rapid method for the determination of dissolved oxygen in water. It is especially useful for studying respiration of water plant which involves a changing oxygen concentration.

As is generally known, H. Spencer, T. Huxley and H. Armstrong played important parts in the establishment of science education in England. But it has not been all accounted yet how relations their theories had with one another. In this paper, the writer tries to clear up this point. From the analysis of human activities in daily life, Spencer concluded the necessity of science education in school, and theoretically formulated a system of science education based on the Pestalozzian principles of education. Huxley and Armstrong, who were both much influenced by Spencer, ap plied the practical teaching materials and teaching methods to Spencer's theory. That is, Huxley and Arm strong stressed, from the viewpoint of natural science, the practical research of science and put in practice. This is one of the developments they established. In this meaning, their concept of science teaching is worthy of note. It seems, however, that Armstrong's purpose, teaching content and teaching methods of science teaching were quite different from those of Huxley. As the purpose, for example, Huxley advocated 11 a grasp of the general character of science and the discipline in the method of all sciences", while Armstrong concentrated his attention only on the "training in scientific method". This difference between these two viewpoints has exerted an influence on the selection and the construction of teaching content. This difference is also found in Armstrong's criticism; 11 Huxley's physiography is a type of the book to be avoided until method has been fully mastered", and “Object-lesson” which was adopted as an effective method of science teaching by Huxley, “is not the experimental teaching". Armstrong's method, which was the latest one of the scientific methods established in Germany, differed from Huxley's old-type method which was applied to natural history. Arm strong classified the difference between the teaching of science and the training in scientific method, and sharply defined demonstration by teacher, experiment by pupil, verificative experiment, heuristic experiment, quantitative experiment, and qualitative experiment. He also verified in practice that training in scientific method is effective only in the process of heuristic research. This implies that Armstrong completely achieved what Huxley had not done, in spite of the same standpoint in purpose, method and principle. Armstrong established a truly modern teaching method of science education beyond the limits of Huxley. But the excessive stress of heuristic method degenerated into formal ism and has been severely criticised. For overcoming this criticism, the science teaching which lays stress on the cultural value of science as Huxley advocated must be accepted. In the science education in England leaves a difficult problem how these two are consolidated, the training in scientific method and science teaching which lays stress on the cultural value of science, without changing both characteristics.

The auther had tested two groups of students, the junior high school students who had not yet learned the law of inertia, and the undergraduates who had already learned it, in order to examine whether or not, they would be able to understand the phenomena relating to the law of inertia. By applying the factor analytic technique to these tests, several factors were extracted. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the extracted factors may be accepted from a viewpoint of the natural structure. The tests obtained the affirmative results from the subjects who had learned the law of inertia, but not from the subjects who had not learned it yet.