There is perhaps no mode of schoolroom procedure that is more misunderstood than is or directed Practitioners and critics alike are suffering from such misunderstanding. In writing to one of authors of this article, a dean of an Ohio college made following remarks about a girl in that college: slaved in Latin but all to little purpose. The whole trouble was that she had actually no foundation in Latin. She had had [in high school], and I judge that teacher did all real work and gave marks to pupils. An investigation showed that such had probably been case. Approximately 50 per cent of all Latin marks issued in particular high school for a period of four years preceding writing of letter were A or B. The semester marks in Latin given to girl in question were 95, 96, 92, 94-A, A, A, A. In this high school there had been a system of so-called supervised study. After receiving high marks in Latin in high school, girl had failed in subject in college. was blamed, but procedure called supervised study had been anything but Supervised .... is .... supervision of pupils who are studying at their desks.' It is in this fundamental conception of that many well-intentioned teachers and scholars go astray. They fail to include words individual and silently in their notions of this method. Consequently, in their brand of supervised study they have simply the supervision of a discussion by class of a new assignment.2 In