considered and answered. The same mind is still present to be
ministered to, so that, so far as possible, substantially the same
method must be followed. There is, therefore, no important change in
this respect. The purpose and the method in general being the same, it
is clear that the two situations duplicate each other to a large
extent. The same quantity of work must be done, and in practically the
same way.

But there is a very striking difference. When the two studied
together, the teacher not only did a part of the work, but she was the
leader; the pupil was a follower, doing only the subordinate part.
Now, being alone, he must do the principal part, in addition to the
other. He must divide his topic into parts, and conceive all the
questions that are worthy of attention; in brief, he must determine
the course of procedure himself, or take the initiative. Herein is
found the great difference between studying with a teacher and
studying alone, and it is a fundamental one. Capacity for self-
direction or initiation is not necessary in the usual class
instruction; but it becomes indispensable the moment one undertakes
independent study.

_(1) The nature and importance of initiative by the pupil._

This capacity is not simply a matter of knowledge. One person may know
much more than another about the factors involved in a proposed
project, and still be inferior to the other in ability to plan its
execution. It is not simply a matter of boldness, either, nor of
energy, although both of these, as well as knowledge, are necessary
elements. It signifies, in the main, rather a certain power of
invention, or a resourcefulness in planning work, a resourcefulness