By Isabel M. Laird, M.A., B.Ed., M.Coll. S.S.T
Psychologist, Royal Scottish National Institution, Larbcrt At the Chester Conference of the Association of Mental Health Workers, in February last, the President, Dr Letitia Fairfield, raised with me some points about the necessity, or even the advisability, of expecting ” perfect ” work from imbecile children. We had no time then to develop our argument, and it has seemed to me, considering the matter at intervals since, worth while to give form to some ruminatings, and in response to the Editor’s request, to address them to readers of Mental Welfare.
The starting point of my interest in this topic would appear to lie some years ago, and in the phrase ” Well done, considering . . I was hearing the phrase monotonously often in a large English institution for defectives. It was spoken by visitors (and staff, myself included) and spoken sincerely : that is, the particular work or play under review was being well done, when we made allowance for the fact that the workers and players were mentally defective persons.
A little later, in a large Scottish institution, the phrase was again haunting my ears. Perhaps, throughout, a personal trait was endowing the words with their haunting quality, for I dislike giving, or receiving, praise which is first exaggerated and then vaguely qualified.
Then one day, after several years of work with both imbeciles and higher grade children, I was curiously struck by the wisely critical remark of a wisely critical doctor long experienced in the care and training of defectives. It happened at the conclusion of a long concert given by institution patients, and produced by myself. ” These items,” he said, pointing to a certain part of the programme, “were well done. And these,” he continued, pointing to another part, ” were well done, considering the children were imbecile in grade.”
As I listened to the two remarks, my mind pounced upon the implied distinction, as a mind pounces upon a truth just discovered after long discomfiture among probabilities. It was apparent that, to the critic, the first set of items had been well done, the others not well done. Did ” Well done, considering . . then, usually imply ” not well done “? I was forced to the conclusion that it did. And if this conclusion were true for these children, one duty was evident?the finding or devising of items which, at the next concert, would secure for the second group of children too, the sincere and unqualified ” Well done
From that conclusion it was only a further step to the decision that not concert work only but results in all or most lessons and occupations might be surprisingly affected by the adoption of some practical aim of ” perfection ” even among imbecile children. For it was soon clear that adoption of the aim began at once to affect the manner of teaching, the degree of encouragement given, and, consequently the effort roused in the children, and the standard of the show work done.
The plea for ” perfection”, of course, needs considerable explanation. Various workers have wanted to know, first, is not ” perfection” a relative quality, or even a mere matter of opinion here? Second, why ever should we aim at perfection in the working of something as imperfect as imbecile mentality? Third, even granting the value of the aim of ” perfection ” in some activities, what about the valuable stimulus of the goal yet to be reached? Fourth, is it possible to formulate any guiding principles whereby workers among imbeciles may be reasonably assured that they are not roaming too far from the comparatively narrow path?that path between straining after absurd excellence, and leaving capacities unexplored?
Firstly, then, I agree that the assessment of ” perfection ” in teaching and training is practically a matter of opinion; but I would not accept that it is a matter of my opinion, of your opinion, or of any other individual opinion. It is a matter of collected, experienced, and tested opinion?a very different thing. But to indicate one line along which it lies, let me give the example of imbeciles doing one of the simpler country dances. They keep good rhythm, and as the dance has four parts, the nurse or student calls out ” Partners … centre … hands . . or some such word just in time to effect a fairly smooth change over at each new part of the pattern. Now, if this performance is presented as a finished piece of work, I have no hesitation in saying it is imperfect, as a dance done by imbecile children. I contend that if that dance can go one stage further, allowing the dancers to go through it in rhythm without periodic reminders extrinsic to the dance, it will cease to be imperfect on that score. But I also contend that if that dance cannot go the one stage further, it is better replaced by a simpler one which can be danced as a true whole. I believe it matters to be able in the end to complete a task oneself, or in team, without assistance. It matters in individual work in class, but especially it matters in show work. The effect of continual prompting in any concert spoils the event for both artistes and audience. Continual prompting in the everyday concert means as a rule either inadequate preparation, or over-ambitions choice of work. In the institution or occupation centre concert, it would appear to mean the latter rather than the former.
To sum up this point, a difficult thing badly done is a blind alley effort, so long as improvement is unlikely or too far distant to be believed in. A simple thing well done is a taste of ” perfection and may, through the additional sense of ease, power, and satisfaction released, thereby lead to the well-doing of a more difficult thing. A further expansion of this point occurs later.
The second is a very different type of argument, but apparently a fairly common one in practice. Since an imbecile is a very imperfect human being, is it not more natural for him to ” do things by half “? This attitude is perhaps an outcropping from the habit of counting imbecile capacity as less than half average capacity for children of the same age. But such a measure is a matter for the mental tester and the statistician, and in any case can indicate only one aspect of the imbecile child, and was never intended as an all-round description of an imbecile child. For workers among the children, the imbecile is a human personality complete, not a bit of one. The amounts and proportions, however, of traits, capacities, emotional integrations and so on, within his personality, differ from those of the average person. They differ much as those of the average person differ from those of the extremely talented, or the saintly, or those in any way really great. It would be absurd, in fact cruel also, to argue that average folk, since they are only partially what the great are, would be best served by spending an appreciable portion of their lives ” half-doing ” what the great do well! It is similarly absurd?not to say similarly cruel?to accept a badly lived ” average ” existence, or a badly mastered ” average ” human training, as in any way beneficial for ineducable children or adults. So the plea for regular enjoyment of the real satisfaction of ” success ” is strengthened.
Again, any attitude of being content with, let alone planning for, ” half-done ” normal activities from imbeciles, blinds us to the wide range of individual differences among them. We know very well what surprising energy may be released all round, when the special little skill or interest of any pupil (normal, subnormal or supernormal) is unexpectedly tapped by-some environmental stimulus. And a very similar release of energy and interest results as the children thoroughly master each step of any graded scheme of exercises or tasks within their capacity. Individual differences then have scope to emerge into daylight, and to be recognised, and used.
A third line of argument is sometimes put forward by still other workers. This is built upon the text ” It is better to travel than to arrive “, and when used to counter the plea for ” perfection ” aims in tasks, one line of it tends to confuse the progress idea and the motion idea in the concept ” travel “. The over-repetition of known work tends to lose even its ritual-pleasure value, if it involves only a narrow circling on one plane. Now, running on the spot may be exercise or fun, indulged in occasionally, but it is not ” travelling “, and it is entirely divorced from the needs of everyday life! Further, it does not even involve the main movements required for running in a game or a race. Yet many of the often repeated ” learned ” exercises in sense training can have no other value for the individual child than ” running on the spot
Another line tends to confuse the repetition work in a graded scheme, with the repetition work in a massed scheme. For example, take tower building with large blocks. The massed method would aim at the building of a tower of say ten blocks. The children try for some days, or even weeks, but for most of them, crashes occur at the seven, eight or nine tower heights. Through all these efforts, one or two children may achieve the ten tower, and so reach ” perfection ” in the set task. But feelings of frustration have been needlessly predominant even for them, and almost certainly for the others. Now, another group try block building. They also aim at the ten tower, but they begin by all aiming at the five tower?or it may be only a three tower, but one which everyone is likely to achieve?then a higher tower, and a higher tower, until the ten tower is built. The little expert will win through first in either case, but the graded method brings ” success ” to a far greater proportion of the class, just because ” Nothing succeeds like success “?and it isn’t ” success ” even to an imbecile child, to be told he does well in reaching the yellow mark on the wall, when the (higher) red mark has been the conscious aim of the class all the time.
Next, ” All very well,” it may be said, ” to advocate ‘ perfection ‘ or ‘ success ‘ systems of training for imbeciles. But can a set of principles be advocated, which will help to focus emphasis upon the success or perfection side of the learning process?” Naturally, there can be little variation from the established rules of learning and rules for teaching, in any standard text book on the subject. But some of the wider principles may be outlined here, with imbecile children in mind as the learners.
(a) The general task will be in the teacher’s mind as a whole task, but will be presented to the patients or pupils as a series of small, graded, connected steps. And success at each step will be noted and commented upon, both as a complete success, and as a jumping-off ground for the next step.
(b) Even in the best graded schemes of tasks, there will occur now and then stubborn failure points, like the plateaux in any long learning-curve. Here an alternative step may have to be invented, at the same level of work, but just sufficiently different to call up a slightly more interested effort, perhaps, or a renewed belief in the possibility of success. For example, in the block building, a child fails to maintain a steady arm once the tower reaches his own shoulder level. The introduction of a (broad enough and firm enough) flat box on which to stand for placing the next blocks, seems to bring back belief in his capacity to make a higher tower that will stand. Of course, this is not equivalent to balancing the same number of blocks from floor level, but it is the right kind of between-task for avoidance of undue failure.
An occasional stubborn case of failure in a series of tasks may not yield to this. In that instance, the best result is probably gained by giving an entirely different kind of task for a day or two, instead. Success there may then make the former task more easily tackled later on.
(c) Adequate revision all along is an essential feature of any good teaching method, and a ” success ” method is no exception. We are not able to do a thing always, because we do it a first time. Think of metal puzzles. We worry away in a trial and error bewilderment to separate two pieces of hooked metal, and presently find we have one in each hand. We have succeeded in separating them, but we do not ” see how “. But when we can do this puzzle quickly say three times in succession, or at any time on demand, then we do ” see how and we have the learning at ” perfection ” level. With the lower-grade defectives, much of the success in acquiring skills is of this level, and chance successes are not to be confused with mastery of a job. The little girl has just skipped one by herself with a rope. We do not say ” Now, skip two “, or ” Now see how many you can skip.” We say, ” Go and show Billy how you can skip one, and then go and show Mary how you can skip one Perhaps then we say, ” Tomorrow we’ll see if you can skip two If such a child has free play time and a rope during the evening, she may return on the morrow able to skip not two but half a dozen. On the other hand, she may have no free practice facilities, and may take another week to progress from skipping one to skipping two.
(d) Any system of learning, or even lack of system !, demands the adequate use of progress books or cards. We must know the stages which our children have reached, and because any individual method of teaching involves wider variation of progress in a group, more detailed individual ratings must be recorded more frequently. Happily these need not involve expansive hand-written reports. One large squared-paper chart with names of pupils one way, and titles of tasks the other, can be kept rapidly and effectively to date, by means of coloured pencil marks or gummed paper stars, preferably dated, to mark successes attained.
These points are still highly debatable, and so are some corollary ones, such as :?
that not all workers among imbeciles are capable of embracing a ” perfection ” method of teaching.
(2) that not all occupation centres, resident or day, have enough graded equipment to allow of such a method being freely adopted. (3) that such a method, since it could not, strictly speaking, be observed in animal learning, is therefore not, perhaps, the best spur to learning at a low human level.
This article is addressed to all fellow workers among ineducable children, and it is hoped that the discussion may be useful to newer workers, and that it may be a pointer to stale patches in the teaching of some more experienced workers, as it has been to me. It may even drive some very much more experienced folks to say, ” This is utter nonsense “, and to write to the Editor stating an opposite case. If so, let us hope they do so in time for the October number.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.