of safety in prematurity? etc., etc. These questions have not been answered. "If we knew just the times when the different anatomical concords were developed, and on just which of them the different movements used in reading, writing, drawing, manual training, sewing, etc., depended, we could so plan our courses of study as to take the tide of nervous growth at its full. We could avoid premature efforts that would be bound to end in failure. We would save children from learning with difficulty and danger things they might, earlier or later, learn with ease and profit! We do not know the times when the different concords are developed, or even their order." (37, PP. 75-76, and 36, p. 104.)

A few major studies, however, bear upon the order in which certain muscles come into accessory control and the approximate ages at which this control takes place.

W. L. Bryan (1892) (11), in his study of voluntary motor ability, dealt chiefly with "(1) the maximum rate of rhythmically repeated movement and (2) the precision of voluntary movement, particularly as regards direction and force," noting also "the bilateral development of strength and endurance." All of these points bear upon our problem. One result is readily seen from the records of his tapping experiments. The direction of control in tapping is very evident. Control over all joints usually increases with age, but the control over the hand increased later and increases more than does the control over the arm.

Related studies showing similar tendencies were made by Gilbert (14, 15) at Yale and at the University of Iowa.

"The child's hand at the age of commencing school is relatively immature in power of rapidity of movement, strength and precision. Roughly it would seem that at the age of six the child has acquired only about 20 to 75 per cent. of the power at sixteen years of age. It is clear that the period from six to ten years is one of extreme nascency."

In an imitative tapping test on 162 children between the ages of five and seven (1st school year) Hancock (16) noted that "five succeeded somewhat slowly in tapping correctly with both hands; four were successful in the right hand only, and three with the left; fifty tapped with the whole hand, using a wrist motion; nine with the whole hand, using an elbow motion; five with the whole hand, with both an elbow and a wrist motion; forty-nine alternated the index finger with the other three; seven of these, however, did this with one hand only, the movement of the other hand being with all the fingers moving together from the knuckles; twenty-five gave irregular movements, indefinite and uncertain, but in many instances approaching success; in twelve cases the movement was from

the knuckles, all the fingers moving together." This shows a tendency to use the muscles of the forearm and wrist, even though the suggestion was for the use of the finger muscles.

In needle-threading, string-tying, and beating time experiments there was evident the relative difficulty or even inability to control the finger muscles, and the corresponding ease and ability to control those more nearly central.

Gulick (29, p. 800) says that "unless influenced by adults, children do but little fine work with the fingers and wrists, not very much involving delicate co-ordination. The movements

are the larger movements of the trunk, shoulders, and elbows." Of course every child is, fortunately, influenced by adults, and we hear statements made by supposedly competent observers to the effect that children naturally do "fine work with the fingers and wrists." Are these observers careful to use media that do not suggest the use of the fine muscles? What muscles do children use in their free play? How much coordination do they employ? What forms does the co-ordination take? How does it vary with age? How does it vary with certain definite changes in environment?

"No one has proved that any of the nervous basis necessary for the associations involved in the reading, writing, drawing, cutting, pasting, measuring, modelling, sewing, etc., commonly taught in schools, is delayed in appearance till after the fifth birthday." (37, p. 76, and 36, p. 105.) But we should not forget that the mere possibility of development at a certain time does not warrant the development at that time.

My own belief is that after the age of about seven or eight, or rather after the readiness-to-fatigue time has passed, when the rate of growth lessens, when the organism is relatively stable and the health is good, when the brain has practically attained mature size and weight, the training of the brain should be systematic and kept up in earnest; then should come as tasks most of the drill in reading, writing, arithmetic, sewing, weaving, drawing, modelling, etc., etc., using the more complex co-ordinations of muscles. Not earlier, else forcing is liable to produce arrest of development;-not later, else we shall lose the reactionary effect of muscle on the brain-we should have a part of the body not functioning and so liable to practical atrophy. For "cells which fail to react during the proper growing period of an animal have lost their opportunity forever" (3, p. 37; 28), and it should be borne in mind that "the time required to accomplish a change of a given extent increases with the age of the organism." (46, p. 87.)

"We know that the child's strongest characteristic is activity, and yet how little do we utilize his activities in teaching. We are remiss in this principally because we do not know just

what activities to utilize, nor do we know what sort of occupations will utilize the activities he possesses." (34, p. 39.)

Just what activities should be utilized? How shall these activities be utilized in producing such control over the child's experiences as will make him socially efficient? Dewey (25, 26, 27) et al. are giving answers. Are the answers that have

been given adequate?

Fortunately in the absence of definite scientific data upon which to base our practices, we must still keep on in the work. I am inclined to think that Thorndike (37, p. 78, and 36, p. 107) gives good advice when he says:

"The best practical attitude of the teacher of children 6 to 12 to take would seem to be to find out, by trying, the most economical time to teach the movements he wished the children to know, and to make sure, again by trying, that they do not hurt the children's health. Whether they will or not cannot be told beforehand by any theory about the development of the brain by virtue of its inner growth, but only by observing directly the signs of brain exhaustion."

Kirkpatrick (31) says: "Tests that would be of value to the ordinary teacher in determining the adaptability of her daily programme to her children, and in discovering exceptional instances of fatigue in the school or in individual pupils, have been sought for several years. It may be safely said, however, that no method of discovering fatigue, that can be mechanically applied by a teacher, has been found. Such tests cannot take the place of intelligent common sense and good judgment on her part. She must be not only able to note the decrease in rate or accuracy of working, but must also learn to read the signs of on-coming fatigue in the pupils' attitudes and movements." (Cf. 38, p. 213.)

From this study there have come six results of value at least to the writer.

Ist. There has been emphasized the great desirability of especially considering the control phase in the distinction between the fundamental and the accessory movements.

2nd. The movements that accompany voluntary attention, it seems to the writer, should certainly be included in the distinctively accessory movements. They are characteristically human and have, in a marked degree, all the characteristics that Burk (2) finds in accessory movements, viz., they have “infinite variety" in contrast to "extreme fewness;" "complexity" in contrast to "simplicity;" "precision" in contrast to "clumsy inaccuracy;" they exist in "a long series in sequence" rather than in "simultaneous association;" they are "specialized" rather than "generalized."

3rd. Apparently we must recognize that movement in education is not wholly from fundamental to accessory, but that a portion of it is from accessory to fundamental in the development of ontogenetic habit.

4th. The importance of the motor phases of schoolroom activities are re-emphasized.

5th. One is greatly impressed with the lack of knowledge concerning the plastic periods of children for different kinds of impression, and with this the ignorance concerning the dangers of too early, too late, too much or too little use by the children of certain mental and physical activities.

6th. In the absence of such knowledge, and knowledge along related lines, we must act in the practical situations which confront us in our schoolrooms. Thorndike's advice

(already given on page 112) should be emphasized, with the suggestion that we are not liable, at present, to err on the side of too long delay in the introduction of accessory movements by the children, nor of having the children use them too little. Waste in education will be eliminated not so desirably by attempts to shorten the period of infancy as by utilizing this plastic period in such manner that the reactions that we desire to have fundamental may become so thoroughly engrained as habits that much more of the energy of the mature individual may he utilized in the accessory control necessary for effective service in this complex environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

I. RÉSUMÉS.

I. BROADBENT, WILLIAM. Hughlings Jackson as pioneer in nervous physiology and pathology. Brain, 1903, Vol. XXVI, pp. 305-366.

2. BURK, FREDERIC. From fundamental to accessory in the development of the nervous system and of movements. Ped. Sem., Oct., 1898, Vol. VI, pp. 5-64.

3. DONALDSON, H. H. The growth of the brain. London, W. Scott, 1895. 347 P.

4.

5.

-. Our present knowledge of the growth of the nervons system. Trans. Ill. Soc. for Child Study, July, 1902. Same in Jour. of Childhood and Adolescence, 1902. Vol. II, PP. 174-180.

HALL, G. S. Adolescence. N. Y., D. Appleton, 1904. 2V. See especially Chap. 3 on Growth of motor power and function.

6. MERCIER, C. A. The nervous system and the mind. London, Macmillan Co., 1888. 347 P.

7. Mosso, A. Psychic processes and muscular exercise. Univ. Dec. Celebration Publication, 1899, pp. 383-395.

Clark

8. Ross, JAMES. Treatise on the diseases of the nervous system. 2d ed. London, Churchill, 1883. 2v.

8a. Ross, JAMES. Handbook of the diseases of the nervous system. London, Churchill, 1885. 723 p.

9. TERMAN, L. M. A study in precocity and prematuration. Amer. Jour. of Psy., Apr., 1905, Vol. XVI, pp. 145-183.

10. ALLEN, Jessie Blount. Associative processes of the guinea pig. Jour. of Comp. Neurol. and Psy., 1904, Vol. XIV, pp. 293-359. BRYAN, W. L. The development of motor ability. Amer. Jour.

II.

of Psy., Nov., 1892, Vol. V, pp, 125-204. Reprint in Study of Children, May, 1901, pp. 43-62. Also in Teachers College. Record, 1901, Vol. II, pp. 207-226.

12. CAJAL, S. RAMON Y. Comparative study of the sensory areas of the human cortex. Layer of the large stellate cells. The sensori-motor cortex. Clark Univ. Dec. Celebration Publication, 1899, pp. 311-382.

13. FLECHSIG, P. E. Gehirn und Seele. Leipzig, Veit, 1896. pp.

I12.

14. GILBERT, J. A. Researches on the mental and physical development of school children. Studies from the Yale Psy. Lab., 1894, Vol. II, pp. 40-100.

15. GILBERT, J. A. Researches upon school children and college students. Univ. of Iowa, Studies in Psy., 1897, Vol. I, pp.

I-39.

16. HANCOCK, J. A. A preliminary study of motor ability. Ped. Sem., Oct., 1994, Vol. III, pp. 9-29. Reprint in Study of Children, May, 1901, pp. 62-79. Also in Teachers College Record, 1901, Vol. II, pp. 226-243.

17.

18.

HELD, H. Ueber experimentelle Reifung des Nervenmarks. Arch. f. Anat. u. Entwicklungsges., 1896, pp. 222-229. JACKSON, J. H. "The Hughlings Jackson lecture on the relation of different divisions of the central nervous system to one another and to parts of the body." Lancet, 1898, Vol. I, pp. 79-87.

19. LINDLEY, E. H. A preliminary study of some of the motor phenomena of mental effort. Amer. Jour. of Psy., July, 1896, Vol. VII, pp. 491-517.

20. ROBINSON, LOUIS. Darwinism in the nursery. Nineteenth Cent., Nov., 1891, Vol. XXX, pp. 831-842.

21. SEGUIN, EDOUARD. Psycho-physiological training of an idiotic hand. Reprint from Arch. of Med., N. Y., Oct., 1879, Vol, I, 8 p. WATSON, J. B. Animal education; an experimental study on the psychological development of the white rat. Chicago Univ. Press, 1903. 122 p.

22.

23. BAGLEY, W. C.

III. APPLICATIONS.

The educative process. N. Y., Macmillan Co., 1905. 358 p. See especially pp. 337-346.

24. BRYAN, E. B. Nascent stages of development and their pedagogical siguificance. Ped. Sem., Oct., 1900, Vol. VII, pp. 357396.

25. DEWEY, JOHN. The child and the curriculum. Chicago Univ. Press, 1902. 40 p.

26.

125 P.

School and Society. Chicago Univ. Press, 1899.

27. DEWEY, JOHN, and RUNYON, L. L., EDS. Elementary School Teacher. Chicago Univ. Press, 1900. Vol I.

28. DONALDSON, H. H. Growth in relation to training. Trans. Ill. Soc. for Child Study, 1894, Vol. I, pp. 59-63.