The art of teaching grew up in the schoolroom out of inventiveness and sympathetic concrete observation. Even where (as in the case of Herbart) the advancer of the art was also a psychologist the pedagogics and the psychology ran side by side and the former was not derived in any sense from the latter. The two were congruent but neither was subordinate. And so everywhere the teaching must agree with the psychology but need not necessarily be the only kind of teaching that would so agree; for many diverse methods of teaching may equally well agree with psychological laws.
To know psychology therefore is absolutely no guarantee that we shall be good teachers. To advance to that result we must have an additional endowment altogether a happy tact and ingenuity to tell us what definite things to say and do when the pupil is before us. That ingenuity in meeting and pursuing the pupil that tact for the concrete situation though they are the alpha and omega of the teacher's art are things to which psychology cannot help us in the least.