most they simply indicate that the pupil has completed a definite amount of work in a more or less satisfactory way. A student of educational problems must know that this information is not of great value. There is no actual correlation between the high averages of the student in the high school and in the subsequent courses of the professional school. On the other hand, if the student should unwisely select a professional school course for which he was poorly adapted, it is likely that his collegiate grades will be relatively low, although his high school averages were high. If there is no correlation then between high-school and collegiate records for the single individual, what is the object of devoting so much time and effort to the accumulating of grades during the progress of the pupil through the lower schools? What is the practical value of these records other than to show that the student has met a certain arbitrary standard that entitles him to promotion, or finally to graduate from high school? After all, does not the average teacher know without these formal grades whether pupils have appropriated a sufficient amount of information to entitle them to promotion without the expenditure of a large amount of energy and time in the tabulation of the large number of grades that she is silently aware are not very accurate? Would it not be more in harmony with modern tendencies in education to use the time devoted to tabulating grade records in formulating data on aptitudes and defects that manifest themselves in behavior that grows out of the reactions to subject matter, and in coördinating effort in class tests and playground activities? It is certainly true that this information would be more useful to the child in determining the direction of future activities than we can reasonably expect the present grade system to be. Of course due allowance must be made for inaccuracies of judgment on the part of the individual teacher. It is not contended that every teacher is totally indifferent or unaware of mental traits that manifest themselves in the progress of class instruction. Obviously the extent of this information depends upon the teachers' power of observation, their personal interests in their pupils, and the accuracy of their judgments. But relatively little importance is attached to the information acquired, and no facilities have been provided for preserving these facts for teachers of subsequent grades. A record made up of the conclusions reached by a teacher who is in more or less intimate contact with the pupil through several months of instruction and containing estimates of the child's aptitudes and disabilities would certainly be of more value to new teachers to whom the students were sent for more advanced instruction than a list of grades of doubtful accuracy and validity. It is recognized that information based upon subjective tests is more difficult to acquire accurately than objective data based upon the child's oral or written productions. It is also recognized that standardization is more difficult with subjective data than with objective data, but the problem is not one of relative difficulties, but of relative values. Granted that the information acquired is as likely to be inaccurate as grades, which is doubtless true, it would still appear to be more important for new teachers to know mental qualities than objective grades based on varying standards of instruction. None of the public-school records with which the authors are familiar provides any space whatever for observation relating to mental traits. Some of the printed record blanks contain space for "remarks," but no direction is given as to what kind of remarks is desired and this part of the record is usually left blank. The scanty information that may have been obtained by the teacher, therefore, is totally lost. The most intrinsic knowledge relating to the child is dissipated through faulty records and failure to appreciate the significance of this type of data. The inadequacy of the present system may be more fully appreciated by visualizing a typical schoolroom situation. Suppose that twenty pupils compose a class group. This group has been brought together as a result of having previously met certain standards of knowledge with reference to certain prescribed subject matter. The daily schedule comprises instruction in arithmetic, grammar, history, spelling, reading, and writing. In the course of time and experience the teacher observes the following: (1) Two children merely drag along, yet they do not appear unusually dull or stupid. (2) Four students show interest and ability in arithmetic and limited interest and ability in grammar and spelling. (3) Eight other pupils in the group show limited capacity to learn grammar and to correlate the facts of history. In other words, they complain that grammar and history are hard for them. (4) The remainder of the group make reasonable progress in all of the subjects and apparently reveal no conspicuous defects in any of them. With varying details and numbers this is a situation that confronts every teacher, but as we approach the deeper aspects of the problem we see that the difficulties of the situation vary widely and minutely between the members of the group. For example, between two pupils doing reasonably well in arithmetic one is more apt in mechanical work or processes of analysis, while the other is more apt in the thought-processes of stated problems. As we study the class group an unlimited number of questions deserving consideration present themselves. For example: Is there any correlation between arithmetical analysis and grammatical analysis? Is it possible to carry over apparent aptitudes in one subject to another subject, especially where these processes are similar? These and many similar questions test the astuteness of the teacher in developing and determining talents and aptitudes of students. These are examples of many subtle questions that ordinary observation will not reveal. Their revelation requires special methods and trained observers. This points the way for the recognition of scientific educational diagnosis that may be used to supplement the observations of the discerning teacher. Much greater success will come to educational effort when we learn to make scientific observations by the use of intelligent methods. CLASSIFICATION OF NATIVE ENDOWMENTS This discussion implies a revelation of certain fundamental qualities of mind and heart. Education is based upon the recognition of native endowments. They may be grouped roughly as follows: (1) social endowments, (2) temperamental qualities, (3) mentality, (4) vital force, (5) aptitudes. These qualities not only differ widely in different individuals, but in intricate combinations they vitalize human life with forces of endless possibilities. The expression of these forces is known as human behavior, which is the means which the psychologist is now using to interpret the strength of mentality. No process of education or exertion can increase them beyond nature's allowance. Education is not creation. It is revelation and direction. President Wilson has written a little book that he calls When a Man Comes to Himself. He maintains that "a man comes to himself when he has found the best that is in life, and has satisfied his heart with the highest achievements he is fit for. It is only then that he knows of what he is capable and what his heart demands.”1 In another connection in the same volume he says that "men come to themselves by discovering their limitations no less than by discovering their deeper endowments and the mastery that will make them happy." President Wilson takes the precaution to state that not all men come into full possession of nature's endowment, and he also declares that there is no fixed time in a man's life when he becomes aware of the full possession of these powers. He has presented here a remarkable revelation of the relation of nature to nurture3 in mental development. In passing it may be worth while to define the factors that compose human endowments. 1. Social endowments include those attributes that reflect the qualities of social action. They originate in the gregarious instincts, and manifest themselves in many ways. Men differ widely in these talents. Some men by their personality attract and fascinate while others repel and disgust. Both sociality and anti-sociality are real qualities. 2. Temperament has been defined by Ladd as "any marked type of mental constitution and development which seems due to inherited characteristics of the bodily organism." Psychologists have classified temperament as sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and sentimental, with 1 P. II. 2 P. 23. 3"Nurture" is used here to convey the idea that not only formal instruction, but all the experiences of life help to reveal to a man the extent of his talents as well as the limitations of his ability. 4 See McDougall, An Introduction to Social Psychology, p. 84. |