In the matter of the relative contribution of teacher and class to the discussion, it may be said that a teacher who talks too little is as bad as a teacher who talks too much. As a general rule the college graduate teaching history who is well informed in his subject matter tends to talk too much in the class room, and his study of the new lesson is more of a lecture than a recitation. As an observer of such a teacher remarked, “The young man made a very good recitation himself, while the class listened.” On the other hand, the teacher who has less background of historical knowledge is inclined to make the class do all the work while he or she acts as inquisitor and perpetual question mark. Nothing is contributed in the way of information or interpretation save what the pupils have acquired from the text-book, and the result is an unscholarly and rather barren drill. The true history teacher will mingle knowledge with method, and will add to and amplify the subject matter by taking part sympathetically in the recitation, without, however, monopolizing the discussion. In calling on members of the class to take part in the discussion, attention should be given to those who need it most, rather than to the bright and well-informed pupils. The dull or inattentive pupil, who is whispering to his neighbor or not paying proper attention, needs more real teaching than the bright boy or girl. The interest of all members of the class should be aroused, and voluntary questions, discussions and debates encouraged rather than discouraged. If the pupils are inattentive and uninterested, it is certainly a criticism of the teacher and of his or her power of exposition and interrogation. Much of the success of the recitation on the new lesson will depend on the way the subject matter is handled. Some leading idea or problem should form the center of the discussion, which should take the form of saving or explaining the question in an historically true manner by bringing out the main points of development. In the course of such a discussion the application of the topic to present conditions and its relation to the past should be kept in mind and questions asked from both viewpoints. This applies particularly to topics in medieval and modern, English and American history fields which are, on the whole, more closely connected with modern civilization than the field of ancient history can possibly be. If the problem studied is practically completed in the lesson for the day, and a new topic to be taken up next time, then a summary should be made at the end of this part of the recitation. If, however, the same line of historical development is to be studied next day, such a summary will form part of the next recitation. Thus the question of a summary at the close of the recitation on the new lesson depends on the nature of the next lesson to be studied. (c) The Assignment of the Next Day’s Work.