ches naturally according to his own personality. To change his
method would be to destroy his effectiveness. If he isn't a teacher then
the study of methods will not make him one. In either case work done on
methods is lost.

Of course, experience refutes both contentions. It is admittedly true
that great teachers are born to their work--that some individuals just
naturally impress others and stimulate them to high ideals. And yet
there is no one so gifted that he cannot improve through a study of the
game he is to play. Most great athletes are by nature athletic. And yet
every one of them trains to perfect himself. The best athletes America
sent to the Olympic games were wonderfully capable men, but they were
wonderfully trained men, as well. They had studied the _methods_ of
their particular sports. Great singers are born with great vocal
potentialities, but the greatest singers become so as the result of
thorough training. _Methods_ elevate them to fame. What is true of the
other arts ought also to be true of teaching.

As to the class of teachers not born to the calling, it seems perfectly
clear that here is the great opportunity for a study of the fundamentals
underlying good teaching. Sound pedagogy is just a matter of good,
common sense. Any normal person by studying how to do anything ought in
the end to come to do that thing better than if he ignored it. I may not
know how to operate an automobile. But if I study how to operate one, if
I observe those who do know how, and if I practice operating one--surely
I shall come to be more efficient as a chauffeur.

But while many will admit that this law of development applies in the
mechanical world, they hold that there is something mystic about
teaching for which only a pedagogical birthright is a solution. The
fallacy of such a contention seems too evident to call for argument. At
least the only sensibly hopeful view to take in such a Church as ours,
in which so many members must perforce be called to be teachers, is that
power in teaching can be developed as it can in any other field of
endeavor.

The other bit of warning applies to the kind of teacher who is
unalterably committed to a single method, not only as the best method,
but the only one worth following. Method depends so essentially on the
personality of the teacher, on the nature of the pupils taught, and on
the subject matter to be presented, that it is a very dangerous thing to
say that, in spite o