In order to discover the aptitudes of the mentally defective, we have three means of interrogating our questionnaires. In the first place these contain the following question: Does the child show any particular aptitude either at school or outside? This question has evoked replies which vary very little, for amongst the aptitudes of the children scarcely anything is mentioned but bodily occupations—errands, domestic duties, gymnastics, sewing, and drawing. In the same questionnaire another question, placed on the following page, is almost identical in form with the first: Is there anything in which the child is particularly interested? The replies to this second question have been a little more numerous than to the previous one. It is true that the two differ by a shade—the distinction between interest and aptitude. One may interest oneself in something for which one has no aptitude. The following table shows the distribution of the replies to the two preceding questions:
The Mentally Defective.
| Aptitudes. | Interests. | ||
| Pupils. | Pupils. | ||
| None | 19 | None | 11 |
| Practical life | 7 | Writing | 8 |
| Sewing | 7 | Drawing | 7 |
| Gymnastics | 1 | Sewing | 6 |
| Drawing | 1 | Gymnastics | 5 |
| Arithmetic | 3 | ||
| Recitation | 3 | ||
| History | 2 | ||
| French | 1 | ||
| Music | 1 | ||
| Singing | 1 | ||
| Reading | 1 | ||
| Object lessons | 1 | ||
These two lists are not superposable, but if we take them together we shall notice that sensori-motor occupations, such as gymnastics, "practical life," sewing, writing, and drawing, are those which are most interesting to these pupils. Sewing, writing, and drawing are, indeed, their favourite lessons. We should have expected that singing would not have left them indifferent, for other investigations have shown us that the majority have a good voice; but it is quite apparent that singing is less attractive to them than drawing. A very characteristic feature is the absence of any mention of composition. Some of the abnormal are fond of arithmetic; none shine in composition. This fact, though negative, seems worth consideration. Speaking generally, we never find that a child who is good at composition is mentally defective.
We have mentioned that there is a third method of weighing the aptitudes of defective children. In our questionnaire we asked the teachers to give marks showing the relative ability of these children in the different subjects. From these marks it appears that in four subjects they are more successful than in others. These are gymnastics, drawing, writing, and reading. We regret that we did not include in our list sewing, manual work, and object lessons. Here are our results in figures. These indicate for each pupil the two subjects in which he has obtained the highest marks.
| Pupils. | Pupils. | ||
| Reading | 23 | Arithmetic | 6 |
| Writing | 18 | Spelling | 5 |
| Drawing | 11 | Singing | 3 |
| Gymnastics | 11 | Recitation | 3 |
It is not at all uncommon for a defective to take the first place in writing or in drawing. This is quite a remarkable fact, although we must hasten to add that in such cases the defective is usually the oldest child in the class.
All these observations are sufficiently uniform, and lead to the same conclusion. The dominant features in the defective are the senses, the concrete perceptions, and motor ability. These are the faculties which are normally developed. His constant weakness in composition shows that the function of speech is quite evidently inferior to the sensory and motor functions. Let us weigh these facts and sum up. What a great mistake it would be to give to children of this kind the syllabus of instruction which has been made to suit normal children. This syllabus harmonises with the development of all the faculties. How, then, could one make children follow it whose aptitudes are limited?
Inquiries by questionnaire have one defect which has often been noted. They bring together statements furnished by correspondents who are often unknown, and whose judgment and accuracy it is impossible to estimate. Each of their observations, taken by itself, has little authority. It is the sum of concurring observations which should alone be taken into consideration; and even then it is necessary to be cautious before drawing any practical conclusion, because an agreement in the replies sometimes indicates nothing more than a general misconception.