ATTITUDE OF THE LEARNER.—­The attitude of the typical learner must frequently be one of hesitancy and self-distrust if not of fear, though conditions were so varied as almost to defy classification.  One type of apprentice was expected to learn merely by observation and imitation.  Another was practically the chore boy of the worker who was assigned to teach him.  A third was under no direct supervision at all, but was expected to “keep busy,” finding his work by himself.  A fourth was put through a severe and valuable training by a martinet teacher,—­and so on.

TEACHING OFTEN PAINSTAKING.—­It is greatly to the credit of the worker under this type of management that he was, in spite of all drawbacks, occasionally a painstaking teacher, to the best of his lights.  He insisted on application, and especially on quality of work.  He unselfishly gave of his own time and skill to help the apprentice under him.

METHODS OF TEACHING USUALLY WRONG.—­Unfortunately, through no fault of the worker-teacher the teaching was usually done according to wrong methods.  Quality of resulting output was so emphasized that neither speed nor correct motions were given proper consideration.

TEACHER NOT TRAINED TO TEACH.—­The reason for this was that the worker had no training to be a teacher.  In the first place, he had no adequate idea of his own capabilities, and of which parts of his own method were fit to be taught.  In the second place, he did not know that right motions must be insisted on first, speed next, and quality of output third; or in other words that if the motions were precise enough, the quality would be first.  In the fourth place he had no pedagogical training.

LACK OF STANDARDS AN UNDERLYING LACK.—­All shortcoming in the old time teaching may be traced to lack of standards.  The worker had never been measured, hence had no idea of his efficiency, or of possible efficiency.  No standard methods made plain the manner in which the work should be done.  Moreover, no standard division and assignment of work allowed of placing apprentices at such parts of the work that quality could be given third place.  No standard requirements had determined his fitness as a teacher, nor the specialty that he should teach, and no incentive held his interest to the teaching.  These standards the worker-teacher could not provide for himself, and the wonder is that the teaching was of such a high character as it was.

VERY LITTLE TEACHING OF ADULTS.—­Under Traditional Management, teaching of adults was slight,—­there being little incentive either to teacher or to learner, and it being always difficult for an adult to change his method.[1] Moreover, it would be difficult for a worker using one method to persuade one using another that his was the better, there being no standard.  Even if the user of the better did persuade the other to follow his method, the final result might be the loss of some valuable elements of the poorer method that did not appear in the better.