(2) _How are degrees of ability or attainment, and degrees of progress or improvement in the function or a part of the function measured?_ For example, how can we determine how well a pupil should write, or how hard words we expect him to spell, or what good taste we expect him to show? How can we define to ourselves what knowledge of the meaning of a fraction we shall try to secure in grade 4? (3) _What can be done toward reducing the function to terms of particular situation-response connections, whose formation can be more surely and easily controlled?_ For example, how far does ability to spell involve the formation one by one of bonds between the thought of almost every word in the language and the thought of that word's letters in their correct order; and how far does, say, the bond leading from the situation of the sound of _ceive_ in _receive_ and _deceive_ to their correct spelling insure the correct spelling of that part of _perceive_? Does "ability to add" involve special bonds leading from "27 and 4" to "31," from "27 and 5" to "32," and "27 and 6" to "33"; or will the bonds leading from "7 and 4" to "11," "7 and 5" to "12" and "7 and 6" to "13" (each plus a simple inference) serve as well? What are the situations and responses that represent in actual behavior the quality that we call school patriotism? (4) _In almost every case a certain desired change of knowledge or skill or power can be attained by any one of several sets of bonds. Which of them is the best? What are the advantages of each?_ For example, learning to add may include the bonds "0 and 0 are 0," "0 and 1 are 1," "0 and 2 are 2," "1 and 0 are 1," "2 and 0 are 2," etc.; or these may be all left unformed, the pupil being taught the habits of entering 0 as the sum of a column that is composed of zeros and otherwise neglecting 0 in addition. Are the rules of usage worth teaching as a means toward correct speech, or is the time better spent in detailed practice in correct speech itself?