An Experimental-Critical Study of the The Problem of Grading and Promotion
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1911, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. V, No. 4. June 15, 1911.
By W. Fkanklin Jones, Ph.D., Maryland State Normal School, Baltimore, Md. y (Continued.) Part II. The Dynamic Aspect of the Problem.
In the preceding part of this paper it was stated that personal acquaintance with the capacity of the student is the vital thing in any handling of the problem of grading and promotion. It may also be said that this is the vital thing in any teaching. Given a bit of subject matter, an impersonal experience, which is to be communicated from one individual to another, we must have two conditions fulfilled before the aim can be realized, (1) the one who is to receive the impersonal experience must have a stock of personal experiences adequate to give meaning to the subject matter; and (2) the impersonal experience must be presented in such a way as to call forth and utilize these personal experiences. Personal acquaintance with the student must therefore reach out in two directions, (1) the teacher must know what personal experiences the child has which she can utilize; and (2) she must know how to present any given bit of subject matter so as to call forth and utilize these personal experiences. It is the second of these two essentials with which we are now to deal.
After the teacher has assured herself as to what personal experiences of the child she can use in teaching any given bit of subject matter, her next serious problem is that of determining how to present the subject matter so as to get the best response from the child. Moreover, since we are engaged in class teaching, the teacher’s problem is actually enlarged to the still more serious task of presenting the given subject matter so as to extract the hest responses from the minds of a group of students. If one child is chiefly auditory in his stock of experiences related to the given subject matter, then a presentation suited to an auditory response is more likely to succeed with him. So, too, a visual presentation favors a visual response; a motor presentation, a motor response; and so on. A knowledge of the ideational types of school children is therefore a matter of deep concern in teaching; and a study of the relation of ideational types and the method of presenting subject matter may throw some light on the problem of grading and promotion.
The Problem of Discovering the Ideational Types of School Children.
Many psychologists and many students1 of education have recently been busy with the problem of ideational types. We have made some progress in this field, especially in the study of adult minds; but we may as well frankly admit that so far we have found no reliable means of determining whether a child is really visual, or auditory, or motor-minded. The difficulties in the way when we attempt to study the child mind are chiefly as follows: 1. Introspection is needed to save us from all sorts ,of errors, and the child is not gifted in this field. Indeed, we have found that even the adult student of psychology needs considerable training in introspection before he can give us reliable data. 2. It is essentially true that all minds are mixed types; that, is, visual in reference to one experience, auditory in reference to another, kinaesthetic, cutaneous, olfactory, gustatory, and organic, in reference to others. Then there are the compounded reactions: auditory-motor, visual-motor, and so on; and the differentiated forms, visual-verbal, visual-concrete, speech-motor, eye-motor, handmotor, and so on. 3. Any given mind is likely to change in its type of response to a given stimulus as experience widens. As the child develops, the visual-concrete is probably ever ready to become visual-verbal, hand-motor imagery comes in, and so on. The adolescent mind is probably a shifting and variable quantity in its ideational responses.
In the face of all these manifold responses, our objective tests have failed, and we are beginning to realize that objective tests without introspective details can hardly reveal mental types. Tl is the old lesson on objective evidence learned over again. Then, ‘Perhaps the moat active student in thin field at present 1b Colvln. See bibliography.
since reliable introspection requires a degree both of attention and of analysis that is not found in the child, we can see the justification for the statement that so far at least, our means of penetrating the child mind are very questionable cues to ideational types. What is the Evidence of Ideational Types?
There is another difficulty that meets us here, namely, we are not agreed as to what evidence we shall say reveals the ideational type. Shall we say that the mind’s reaction to an immediately present stimulus is the evidence? Or, rejecting this primary response, shall we accept as evidence the response which the mind makes when it is freed from the immediate spell of the stimulus ? In other words, shall we classify according to the primary or the secondary response ? The two by 110 means necessarily agree, as may be seen by the following tests with trained introspectionists: The German word “Anziehung” wTas pronounced aloud by the experimenter, then the subjects (trained introspectionists) counted aloud to twenty (distraction method), and then wrote the word as they understood it.
Introspection of first subject.?”(1) My primary response was wholly auditory. 1 heard the word ‘Anziehung’, and the voice of the speaker rang in my ears. (2) My secondary response was wholly visual. The moment I started to write the word the visual image of it flashed into my mind; and I could see the word almost as distinctly before I wrote it as after.” (This subject had acquired German from books, and could not speak it freely.) Introspection of second subject.?”(1) I heard the sound of a strange word, and found my vocal organs trying to reproduce it. No visual image whatever. (2) After counting and starting to write, I saw the word in my mind and I visualized it before and during the writing. Purely visual.” (This subject was known to be visual in German.)
Introspection of third subject.?”(1) I heard a combination of syllables, but the word had 110 meaning to me. I saw nothing; but the sound lingered, and a faint inner speech was at work. (2) The first syllable was reproduced from the sound which still lingered after repeating the numbers. So much purely auditory. The remaining two syllables came through audition and ^comotor imagery.” Referring now to the first subject, shall we classify him according to his primary response ? Tf so, he i’s auditory in this instance. Shall we classify him on the basis of his secondary response? If so, he is visual. As to the second subject, he is auditory-motor if classified according to the first response, and “purely visual” according to the second. The third subject ma} be classified on the basis of either primary or secondary response without change.
It is a significant fact that these subjects all accepted the classification as shown by the secondary response, but that the first two refused to be classified on the basis of the primary response. It is not to the present purpose to try to settle this matter here; bu there is strong evidence that, with further study, we shall come to accept the secondary response as the only reliable evidence of mental types. When the individual is enslaved by the immediate presence of the stimulus, he is hardly free to reveal himself. Now, if we do accept the secondary response, and not the primary, as the real cue to ideational type, it is evident that we are confronted with a new difficulty when we attempt to discover the types of children. At present, the only certain statement is that the problem of discovering the ideational types of children is a hard and complicated problem, with no reliable solution at hand. Believing, as it seems we must, that the child mind is all the time responding in manifold ways, we can at least allow for each and for all types in presenting subject matter, and see if any effects are evident. This is, in part, what Lay, Itschner, Fuchs and liaggenmuller,*2 and others have done in their studies of the spelling problem.
Study No. 2.
Proceeding on the assumption that a series of experiments, in which the different kinds of presentation, visual, auditory, etc., are controlled, might throw some light of student capacity, and hence upon the problem of grading and promotion, I have made two series of experiments, using (1) a senior class of normal school students (females), already familiar with experimental methods; and (2) an eighth grade whose members (males) were believed to vary widely in mental abilities. The object of these experiments may be stated in the form of two questions: (1) What is the relation of the kind of presentation of subject matter to student capacity?
(2) What light does the study throw on the problem of grading and promotion ?
JA11 these are summarized in Psy. Rev. Monograph, No. 44, 1000, pp. 131, 132.
I. Normal School Tests. Using tliree-letter nonsense syllables, four series of tests were made on a class of sixty-four normal school seniors, all females, ranging from eighteen to twenty-four years of age. Each series comprised three tests of ten nonsense syllables each. A new list of syllables was used in each test. The syllables were known at sight by the students, since the list of one hundred syllables from which they were selected was made familiar in order to avoid complication of records through mis-spelling. A suggestive portion of the list is given below.
mil tor bab sen lab hib nen ron han teb nop tiv lat cal bal gan lun nid sep cam col ris zel nus ral mon wes mip ret pel pol nep bik nol rof num har nup tam hon lus fac gog nad com bim rav ter mul rem The nonsense syllables were made familiar by exposing the whole list, alphabetically arranged on the blackboard, for several days. The students knew the purpose, and they were allowed to read or scribble them daily. It lias already been stated that the object of this procedure was to eliminate the spelling test. It is a fact that the nonsense syllable test as usually employed is largely a spelling test. The order and position of the syllables in the tests were not counted, for the reason that a test in learning and immediate memory was sought, rather than a test of “rote memory.”3 (Meumann’s4 system of marking nonsense syllables does not alter the results of these tests.)
The first three-test series was made witli visual presentation. A simultaneous exposure of ten seconds was made from a blackboard with each separate list. At the expiration of ten seconds the curtain was drawn over the lists, and immediately each student wrote the syllables she remembered. The second series proceeded similarly with auditory presentation, each list being read by the experimenter in ten seconds. The third series was presentee ‘Whipple’s Mnnunl of Montnl nnd FliyRlcnl Tests, pngc 350.
4DIe Experiinenlcllo P&daRogik, I, 1905, p. 07. (simultaneously) on the blackboard, and the syllables were rapidly written by the students, thus combining a visual and a motor presentation; time limit, twenty seconds. The fourth series combined an auditory and a motor presentation, each syllable being pronounced by the experimenter and rapidly written by the students ; time limit again twenty seconds. Finally, a series of three tests of sixteen syllables each was given by a four-fold presentation, as follows: (1) Seeing, sixteen seconds; (2) Hearing, twentyfour seconds in reading; (3) Reading aloud, twenty-four seconds; (4) Writing, thirty-two seconds. One presentation here was immediately followed by the next, with no loss of time between. The final writing of the tests was never hurried, but only a reasonable time was allowed. A short breathing spell was given after each test, and a three-minute recess followed each series of three tests.
A summary of the scores is given below, indicating the total number of syllables written by all the students in each test. The order and position of syllables were not counted. SUMMARY OF SCORES REDUCED TO PER CENT AVERAGES. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Visual. 549 = 70% 353 = 56 279 = 55 Auditory. 461 = 60% 442 = 70 296 = 58 Visual Auditory and Motor. 1 and Motor. 603 = 77% ; 518 = 66% 403 = 64 ! 480 = 76 378 = 74 ; 397 = 78 Combined VisualAuditory-Motor. 863 = 69.15% 693 = 68.75 551 = 67.5 TIME ALLOWED. 1. Visual presentation 10 syllables, 10 seconds. O * ] * A a _ a ? it 20 ” 20 ” 96 ” 2. Auditory presentation 10 3. Visual and Motor presentation 10 4. Auditory and Motor presentation 10 5. Combined presentation 16 a. Visual b. Auditory c. Concert reading d. Rapid writing 16 24 24 32
In compiling the results the students were grouped so as to make handling convenient. It may be remarked that the first group of students (26) gave best results, roughly speaking, wherever visual presentation came in; that the second group (21 students) reached best results wherever auditory presentation was made, while the third group (17 students) showed best results wherever motor presentation came in. In the last series of the tests, no attempt is made to distinguish the hand motor from the speech motor types. Furthermore, no effort was made during the tests to inhibit silent movements of tongue, lips, and so on, for the reason that (1) it would have been impossible to keep them out entirely, and (2) no distractions were welcome here.
Many facts of interest are revealed by this experiment, but for our present purpose the one significant fact is that these three groups of students (we may roughly call them optiles, audiles, and motiles) vary widely in abilities wherever a single form of presentation is given, less widely when a two-fold form is used, and when the presentation covers all three forms (visual, auditory, and motor), the variations, both as to individuals and to groups, are reduced to narrow limits. This may be made clear by the following: TABLE OF VARIATIONS. Form of Presentation. Visual Auditory Visual and motor Auditory and motor Visual, auditory and motor Low Score. 13 12 16 15 High Total Score, j Average. 24 | 18.45 24 18.73 27 ! 21.63 26 21.80 39 | 32.92 Mean Variation. 2.43 1.82 1.75 1.73 2.60 Per cent Variation. 13.12 9.72 8.09 7.94 7.90
The three groups show the following variations under the different forms of presentation (see table on preceding page) : GROUP VARIATIONS.
Visual presentation… Auditory presentation Average for single form. Average Score (Per cent). Group 1. j Group 2. 70 i 56 60 70 65 i 63 Visual and motor presentation 77 ] 64 Auditory and motor presentation 66 75 Average for twofold form Threefold form of presentation. 71.5 j 70 69.15 | 68.75 Group 3. 55 58 56.5 74 78 76 67.52
A well recognized fact now suggests itself; namely, that fourteen years of school work could not fail to eliminate a large per cent of the unfit, hence the narrow variations shown by thesefigures for normal school seniors may not typify the ordinary school grade.
My next purpose was therefore to perform a similar set of experiments on a common school grade, and if possible to find one of wide variation, so as to see what effects the kind of presentation of subject matter could reveal with such a grade. I selected an “Eighth Grade A” in one of the large schools in New York City. The grade was made up of forty boys (the preceding tests were with females, and females are commonly believed to vary less widely than males) who had met as wide a range of vicissitudes in school as any one would care to think of, and who were believed by their teachers to “vary from considerable ability to hopelessness”. The series of tests made with these students were both more extensive and more intensive than had been attempted with the normal school seniors.
In order to make a genuine test of learning abilities with the different materials, a sufficient number of successive presentations was made with the subject matter so as to enable some, at least, of the students to command all of it. By so doing it was hoped to get a more definite idea of the working ability of the students. The tests included the following series:
I. Learning Tests, with Multiple Presentation. 1. Learning a list of thirteen nonsense syllables (selected from the list given on page 103). Five trials were given on the list before it was certain that some students had learned the entire list. 2. Learning a poem, three trials required,? “I see the lights of the village Gleam through the rain and the mist, And a feeling of sadness comes o’er me, That my soul cannot resist; A feeling of sadness and longing That is not akin to pain, But resembles sorrow only As the mist resembles rain.” 3. Learning six historical events and dates, two trials,? 1. 1829 (Mexico freed her slaves). 2. 17G3 (Mason and Dixon’s Line established). 3. 1800 (National capital moved from Philadelphia to Washington. 4. 1G10 (Hudson discovered Hudson Bay, and was there cast adrift and lost). STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 107 5. 1855 (Opening of railroad across the Isthmus of Panama). G. 1819 (First steam vessel crossed the Atlantic, sailing from New York). 4. Learning a list of technical terms, with meaning; two lists, one trial each,? First List. Second List. 1. aberration (wandering). 1. efficacious (having desired 2. entomology (study of in- effect). sects). 2. malignant (very harmful). 3. regurgitate (flow back). 3. hydrotropic (water-seeking). 4. fulinination (explosion). 4. defoliate (deprive of leaves). 5. geotropic (turning toward the earth). G. effeminate (womanish and weak). (Each term used in a sentence to give meaning.) 5. Learning a list of historical names, one trial,? 1. Abelard (French scholar). 2. Glancns (mythical character; torn to pieces by his own horses). 3. Abimeleck (Bible king). 4. Nineveh (ancient Assyrian king). 5. Polonius (a trickster in Shakespeare). G. Xerxes (a Persian king). The above tests were all given on the afternoon of the last school day preceding Christmas. In the forenoon of the first school day after New Year’s (and following an eleven day vacation) the following tests were made with these students: IT. Memory and Relearning Tests.
1. A memory test with no assistance whatever, to see how many of the thirteen nonsense syllables, learned eleven days befoie and with holiday thoughts in between, each student could now produce. Then two other tests on relearning the list of thirteen syllables under the same conditions of presentation as were used in learning the list before the holidays. 2. A memory test on the poem, with no assistance. T ie i two relearning tests on the poem under same condition of present ‘ tion as before.
3. A memory test on the six historical dates, with ever.cs. Then two relearning tests under the usual conditions. In each of the preceding tests, both in learning and in relearning, the following multiple presentation was made: (1) seeing; (2) hearing; (3) seeing and reading aloud in concert; (4) seeing and copying rapidly on paper. III. Learning Tests, with Single Presentation. Finally, two series of three tests each, one series with visual presentation alone, and the other with auditory presentation alone, were made for the purpose of deriving standards of variation under such forms of presentation. Each of these series comprised the following tests:
1. Learning a list of four historical dates or names, with identification as before; two tests (one in each series) of one trial each,? First Series (dates). Second Series (names). 1. 1815 (Napoleon defeated at 1. Alfonso (King of Spain). Waterloo). 2. Kruger (President South 2. 1469 (Mouth of Congo dis- African Republic). covered). 3. Fortinbras (Norman King). 3. 1799 (Washington died). 4. Abiathar (Bible name). 4. 1823 (First successful telegraph line in world, built from Baltimore to Washington, by Samuel F. B. Morse). 2. Learning a list of four technical terms, with meaning, two tests (one in each series) of one trial each,? First Series. Second Series. 1. miniature (small copy). 1. lepidoptera (scale covcred 2. orthoptera (straight wings). winged). 2. malfeasance ( wrongdoing). 3. gratuitous (without cost). 3. posthumous (occurring after 4. immanent (dwelling within). death). 4. saponify (to make into soap). (Each term was used in a sentence to give meaning.) 3. Learning a list of eight nonsense syllables, two tests (one in each series) of one trial each. (The syllables were selected from the list given on page 103.) In deciding upon a system for marking this wide range of STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 109 tests, many difficulties were encountered. It was the dominant purpose (1) to make the tests simple, yet closely following the lines of ordinary school work; and (2) to grade the tests without deviating too far from established scientific methods, yet again following closely the methods used in ordinary school work. After considerable deliberation, the following plan was adopted for marking all of the tests:
The right term, or fact, or meaning counted one point.
2. The right order of the term, etc., counted one point. It may thus be seen that if two or more dates (or terms, etc.) were correctly given, but their places interchanged, they were scored one-half value. So, too, in any list, say of nonsense syllables, an omitted term was simply counted out without affecting the score of succeeding terms. To illustrate, if only three out of ten nonsense syllables were given, say the first, the fifth, and the last of the list, each syllabic was scored two points if the three were in the correct order; but if the “last” syllable preceded the middle one, we may say, then each of the last two counted only one point. Students were thus not required to mark spaces for omitted terms. In no case was a part of a term counted, but each term was counted either right or wrong as a whole.
The nonsense syllable tests were later scored according to the marking system employed by Cyril Burt,5 which is but a slight modification of the Meumann system. The purpose of this double scoring was to furnish a basis for comparison, in order to determine whether or not the simple system here used for all tests was deviating too far from the usual scientific methods. It is interesting to note hero that the Cyril Burt system gave a record in general somewhat higher than that given in the accompanying table, but that in no case did it make a significant change in the variability; and variability is the important fact in these tests for the purpose in hand.
A summary of the scores for all the tests is given in the following table. The ages of these students varied from fourteen years and three months to sixteen years and ten months; average age, fifteen years and nine month?. The grouping follows the plan used in the normal school table; namely, the first group (thirteen students) comprises all who reached their best results, roughly speaking, nnder visual presentation; the second group shows stu dents (sixteen) who succeeded best under auditory presentation; and the third group (eleven students), those who did best un er the motor presentation when it came in.
sUritiih Journal of l’aychologv, Dec.. 1900. pmrc 142 SUMMARY OF SCORES REDUCED TO PER CENT AVERAGES. Combined-form Presentation. I. Learning. Syllables. Poem. 950 = 73% 1137 = 87% 1136 = 71 818 = 74 1414 = 88 891 =81 Dates. 1208 = 93% 1488=93 1048 = 95 Tech. Terms. II. Relearning. Syllables. 1175 = 90% 1404 = 88 1026 = 93 697 = 58% 1427 = 89 977 = 89 Poem* 571 = 71% 405 = 68 552 = 69 Dates. 848 = 71% 1080 = 72 759 = 69 III. One-form Presentation. Visual. 650 = 54% 589 = 39 432 = 39 Auditory. 501 = 42% 842 = 56 462 = 42 (*See statement on page 112 with reference to ruling out certan scores.) The following condensed table of variations reveals the significant facts of the results for our present purpose: TABLE OF VARIATIONS. (PER CENT RECORD.) ( 1st trial . 2nd ” Syllables ?{’ 3rd ” 4th ” 5th ” . 1st trial Poem ?{ 2nd ” 3rd ” Dates / 1st trial 2nd ” Technical terms f Four. Six Historical names. .Six.. (Historical names Technical terms Non. syllables .. f Historical names Auditory ^ Technical terms [ Non. syllables .. MULTIPLE PRESENTATION (LEARNING). Score. Low. High. 0 73 27 92 39 100 50 100 43 100 22 100 55 100 71 100 60 100 92 100 75 100 33 100 75 100 Total Average. 45.05 64.63 80.60 86.10 87.68 73.38 90.83 93.68 88.30 98.60 96.25 83.65 89.33 Mean Variation 13.7 16.61 11.89 9.98 8.35 20.56 7.92 5.34 6.60 2.70 4.34 10.19 5.48 Per cent Variation 30.42 25.70 14.74 11.59 9.52 28.02 8.72 5.70 7.47 2.74 4.51 12.18 6.13 single presentation (learnino). 19 69 19 69 25 69 31 63 31 69 25 69 46.68 44.55 40.74 48.16 49.76 44.68 9.09 10.98 7.57 8.46 8.73 9.02 19.47 24.65 18.58 17.57 17.54 20.19 Averages. 18.39 14.15 10.43 5.11 8.35 6.13 20.90 19.67 18 44 J STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. Ill GROUP VARIATIONS. (LEARNING.) (SUMMARIES.) Presentation. Visual… Auditory. Average for single form. f Non. syllables … I Poem Dates Technical terms.. Historical names. Average for multiple form. Group 1. 54% 42 48 73 87 93 90 90 80.6 Group 2. 39% 50 47.5 71 88 93 88 89 85.8 Group 3. 39% 42 40.5 74 81 95 93 89 86.4 RELEARNING TESTS (MULTIPLE PRESENTATION). Syllables / 1st trial, 2nd ” , Poem… f 1st trial. 2nd ” . -{? Dates… f 1st trial. 2nd ” Score. Low. High. 20 100 46 100 61 100 78 100 60 100 83 100 Total Average. 69.05 82.71 95.23 94.08 98.50 Mean Variation 19.74 13.81 6.55 3.89 8.08 2.53 Per cent Variation 28.59 16.70 J 7.44 4.09 j 8.59 1 r.o. / Averages. 22.65 5.77 8.59 12.34 ELEVEN DAY MEMORY TESTS (MULTIPLE PRESENTATION). Syllables, Poem Dates… 0 73 0 51 0 60 27.26 25.00 18.81 15.68 13.82 14.05 57.52 } | 55.28 i 62.46 74.58 J
Criticism of the Tests.
Referring now to the first tests with the nonse se syllables, it may be noted that the per ccnt of variability is very high for the first two trials. This is essentially due to the fact that such work was wholly new to many of the students, while others knew how to proceed to advantage from the beginning. The same may be said of the first trial with the poem. Since the variation from this cause gradually decreased throughout the ten series of tests, it is evident that the per cent of variability in the earlier tests was relatively too high, as compared with the one-form presentation tests which were the last tests given. The one-form presentation tests were given at the point of greatest advantage in this respect. It is noteworthy that there is no evidence of fatigue in the recor s, and there was none in the testing. The tests began at nine a. m., and interest increased as the tests progressed.
Again, it should be noted that whenever some of the students reach a score of 100 per cent, further testing on the same material is done with less possibility of variation. At two points in the learning tests (the last trial with the six dates, and the trial with the four technical terms) the possibility of variation is seriously crippled from this cause. It was at first thought advisable to rule out the scores of the two trials mentioned, but on figuring up averages it was found that the final conclusions would not be changed if the two tests were thrown out, and since they tend to counterbalance the high variation due to inexperience in the early tests, they have been allowed to stand.
The ruling out process was resorted to, however, in two instances, (1) since the poem proved so attractive to sixteen students (mainly in the auditory group) that they thought it over during vacation, their memory and relearning records were rejected. The students had no idea that the tests were to be repeated after the holidays, and extreme care was taken to find all who had gone over the material during vacation, by giving ready commendation to all such cases. The holiday period was chosen as a good time to check this tendency. (2) The last trial in relearning the dates was ruled out for the reason that the scores were nearly all perfect, hence but little chance for variation.
For the purpose of reaching conclusions as to the relation of the kind of presentation of subject matter to capacity, we may now bring together the main results from our two tables:
CONDENSED STATISTICS (VARIATIONS). NORMAL SCHOOL SENIORS (64 STUDENTS). Presentation. One-form .. Two-form . Three-form Per cent ‘ Variation, j (Total I Summaries. Average.) 11.42 8.02 7.90 (56.5, 63, 65) (71.5, 70, 76) (69 15, 68.75, 67.52) Group Presentation. Average. 61.5 72.5 68.47 Mean Variation 8.88 2.33 1.91 Per cent Variation 5.42 3.22 .64 EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS (40). Presentation. One-form .. Three-form Per cent j Variation. | Summaries. (Total Average.) J 19.67 10.43 (48, 47.5, 40.5) (86.6, 85.8, 86.4) Group Variation. i Mean Average Variation 45.33 3.22 Per cent Variation 7.10 86.3 .30 .35
In whatever way we look at the statistics of the foregoing tables, the one significant fact which is ever intruding is that a class of students shows far greater variation in ability under a one-form than under a two-fold form of presentation, and least of all under that form of presentation which combines the visual, auditory, and motor responses.
Here then are the facts which bear directly upon the subject of student ability, and hence throw light on the problem of grading and promotion.
Conclusions. 1. A visual, auditory, or motor presentation alone does not do justice to half the members of a class. 2. A presentation combining any two forms is better, other things being equal, than any one-form presentation, yet it does not do justice to something like one-third of the members of a class. 3. Nothing less than a presentation combining all three of the typical responses, visual, auditory, and motor, may be said to give adequate opportunities to all members of a class. Part III. The Unity or Formal and Dynamic Aspects. We are now in position to state more definitely what the phrase, “capacity of a student,” really means; and then to carry that meaning over into the serious problem of grading and promotion.
The Capacity of a Student.
We have seen that there are two essential conditions to be realized in any act of teaching; namely, (1) the learner must have a stock of personal experiences sufficient to give meaning to the given subject matter; and (2) the subject matter must be presented in such a way as to call forth and utilize these personal experiences. The capacity of the student may therefore be characterized as his stock of available personal experiences, plus a favorable presentation. A failure to meet either of these two conditions may actually reduce the student’s capacity to zero in any given attempt at learning.
These two conditions, therefore, must furnish us our cues o classification. If a student appears in a class whose work requires a stock of personal experiences beyond him, that student s out oo’ ,s essentially hopeless, and reclassification is imperative. o> too. if a student is found with a stock of working experiences beyond his class, he should be promoted. ‘l’he first requisite, then, in classifying any student is that we have a reasonably good knowledge of his stock of personal experiences. Ten examination questions cannot elicit this essential. Indeed, no written examination can reveal it. Such methods may tell us something, but nothing less than close personal touch with the student can reveal what is needed. The question, “What grade can this child carry ?” should give place to the more appropriate question, “How can this school best serve this child?” In brief, we have relied too much upon “system”.
Since we aim to classify a student on the basis of his capacity, his stock of personal experiences alone is not an infallible guide. A student may have ample personal experiences, yet work may be presented in such a way as to fail to call out those experiences. We have all seen children who do poorly under one teacher, and well under another, and perhaps it was because their capacities to do the work as offered by the two teachers actually varied. We cannot get away from the fact that the student’s capacity is partly determined by the teaching, and it is this element of capacity with which this study is specifically concerned. Before a student is branded as actually incompetent to carry his grade, then, we must know whether or not he has been given a favorable opportunity to respond. The proverbial “examination” sinks into a wretched assumption here, and a close, personal relationship with the student is again our hope. The fact is, the mere designation of the place where a lesson is to be found in a book may be sufficient opportunity for one student; while a most careful analysis of the lesson may be required by another.
All this goes to show that the proper classification of the student is a matter far less formal than our “systems” of grading and promotion indicate. Indeed the system is but an incidental thing in the real problem, and it is a hopeful fact that as time goes on we are learning more and more to sacrifice the system for the sake of the individual. “Systems of promotion need to bo fitted to individual differences in capacity, to be made more flexible, rather than to be made easier for those who now fail.”0 Our study of the interrelation of student capacity and the favorable presentation of subject matter brings out another very common error in teaching; namely, since the teacher commonly presents subject matter in a way suggested by her own ideational ?Thorndlke, Tiie Psychological Clinic, Vol. Ill, pp. 2.r>0, 257.
type, sucli a presentation is probably unsuited to something like two-thirds of her class. There is no question but that this widespread practice is responsible for an alarming per cent of student failures to carry grades; and thus the problems of demotion and elimination are closely related to bad teaching. Our profound respect for system has plunged us into still another bad practice. We have been so inclined to see the child from the standpoint of his grade, that we have actually been guilty of making him a kind of tentative specialist in the subject in which he seemed to have the least ability; that is, if he seemed to have the least ability in arithmetic, and the hignest ability in history, we have had him spend most of his time on arithmetic and the least amount of time on history, in order to make him “carry his grade”. Now, this is nothing less than a worship of the grade, or system, and it is contrary to the child’s best interests, and therefore to the real purpose of the school. We are now demanding that the student be advanced by the subject, rather than by the grade, for we have seen quite enough of the lockstep evils. As ex-President Eliot has said, “We have reaped now in the public school system all the benefits of system and uniformity, and it is high time to superinduce in the American schools the opposite benefits of flexibility and variety.”
It is a hopeful and significant fact that the point system’ of classification and promotion is now making its advent. Under this plan, however, a student should bo permitted, if need be, to belong to several groups or grades at the same time. When he has gained the requisite number of points in history, he should be promoted in history, and so on, and not held back for a given number of points in each subject. Ilis diploma should come with the required number of points. A student should move as rapidly in one subject as his ability permits, and as slowly in another subject as his capacity requires. We have begun to realize that there are no sine qua non subjects, for experience has shown us that individuals can and do succeed in spite of deficiencies in the old “essentials”, or “three R’s”. Moreover, we have found that the individual may have a private road to any subject.
The fact is, broadly stated, we are living theoretically, at least, in the day of immanence. The “inner gift” is the sacre thing, and all our forces are being organized to the end of bringing out the best there is within. Education, religion, government, an all other influences, must ultimately free the ability, the potentia ‘Tbe Grading nnd Promotion of Pupils. F.d. Rev., Vol. 40, pp 37?> 3SG. good within. There is nothing now sacred where the inner man is not, and anything is sacred just in the degree that it receives the inner sanction. We shall hardly stop until this belief has become reality in our schools. Already a Miinsterberg8 can say, “No learning and no training of the human mind counts, if it does not find an emotional willingness,” and school methods are rapidly being remolded to conform to the interests of the individual. Not uniformity, but variety of abilities is what we are now to seek. In brief, our most serious problem is to reach the individual.
All this points to the fact that the old lockstep evils are being remedied in a larger way than any system of grading and promotion can reveal; but the formal step, the “military drill” aspect of grading, is soon to disappear, and “system” is going to have its control very much limited. Systems we must have, but we want less obtrusive, less dominating, and more flexible systems. No system should longer be permitted to pervert the real purposes of the school, but any system may exist as an elastic and modest means of serving the needs of the individual.
General Summary and Conclusions.
By way of summary, we may state the following conclusions: 1. The vital thing in any case of grading or promotion is personal acquaintance with the ability of the student. 2. Student ability is not a fixed and unvarying quantity, but it may be characterized as the student’s stock of available personal experiences, plus a favorable presentation of subject matter. 3. Inadequate experience with the real capacities of students, together with one-sided presentations of subject matter which are suggested by the teacher’s own ideational type, is responsible for many school failures, and hence adds much weight to the already heavy problem of regrading.
4. A visual, auditory, or motor presentation alone does not do justice to half the members of an ordinary class; and nothing less than a presentation favoring all three of the typical modes of response may be safely relied upon in group teaching.
5. Too much emphasis is now placed upon system, and we are not guided enough by the needs of the individual students. G. The lockstep systems, which classify by grades, should bo superseded as far as possible by classification into homogeneous groups, varying from subject to subject, so that we may have ?”Psychology and the Teacher,” p. 203. less grade dominance and more respect for individual needs and capacities.
7. Classification and promotion should be made on the basis of personal acquaintance with the abilities and needs of the student in specific subjects, rather than on the basis of the formal examination covering any or all subjects.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. Ayres:?Some Factors Affecting Grade Distribution, The Psy. Clin., Vol. II, pp. 121-133. 2. Ayres:?A Simple System for Discovering Some Factors Influencing Nonpromotion, The Psy. Clin., Vol. IV, No. 7, Dec. 1910, pp. 189-192. 3. Ayres:?Irregular Attendance?A Cause of Retardation, The Psy. Clin., Vol. Ill, pp. 1-8. 4. Ayres:?Laggards in Our Schools; N. Y., Charities Pub. Com., 1909, p. 143. 5. Ayres:?The Money Cost of the Repeater, The Psy. Clin., Vol. Ill, pp. 49-57. 6. Arnold:?Classification and Educ. of Afflicted Children, The Psy. Clin., Vol. II, 180-191. 7. Bagley:?Classroom Management (Batavia System), pp. 214-224; N. Y. Macmillan & Co. 8. Barnard:?The Seattle Plan of Promotion and Classification, Com. of Ed. Report, 1898-99, pp. 335-341. 9. Blewett:?System of Grading Schools in St. Louis, Ed. Rev., Vol. VIII, pp. 387-388. 10. Boone:?The Lockstep in the Public School, Proc. of N. E. A., 1903, pp 408-412. 11. Boykin:?Class Intervals in City Public Schools, Com. of Ed. Report, 1891, pp. 981-1011. 12. Bryan:?A Method for Determining the Extent and Causes of Retardation in a City School System, The Psy. Clin., Vol. I, 41-52. 13. Buchanan:?Grading and Promotion, Proc. of N. E. A., 1900, pp. 128-137. 14. Burk:?Promotion of Bright and Slow Pupils, Ed. Iter., Vol. XIX, 296-302. 15. Classification and Promotion of Pupils, Com. of Educ. Report, 1892, pp. 601-636, and 1899, pp. 303-357. 16. City School Reports of Cambridge, Mass.; Portland, Oregon; Santa Barbara, Cal.; ct al. 17. Cogswell:?The Cambridge Experiment, Proc. of N. E. A., 1894, pp. 333342. 18. Cornman:?Size of Classes and School Progress, The Psy. Clin., Vol. III? pp. 206-212. 19. Cornman:?The Retardation of the Pupils of Five City School Systems, The Psy. Clin., Vol. I, pp. 245-257… ? 20. Dutton and Snedden:?Administration of Public Education in the U. b-, page 341; N. Y., Macmillan & Co. . TT 21. Falkner:?Elimination of Pupils from School, The Psy. Clin., ol. li, pp. 255-275. . n 22. Falkner:?The Fundamental Expression of Retardation, The Psy. uln., Vol. IV, No. 8, January, 1911, pp. 213-220. ( , 23. Falkner:?Some Further Considerations upon the Retardation o Pupils of Five City School Systems, The Psy. Clin., Vol. 11, P? 24. Garber:?A Rational System of Classification and Promotion ol P Elementary Schools, Ed. 27, 1906, 1907. a?urtr.l?: Thf 25. Gayler: Retardation and Elimination in Graded and Rural be > Psy. Clin., Vol. IV, No. 2, April 1910, pp. 40-45. . c 26. Gayler:?A Further Study of Retardation in Illinois, The is . Vol. IV, No. 3, May, 1910, pp. 79-82. , iy 27. Gilbert:?Gradation and Promotion of Pupils, Ed. Fou > 718-726. 118 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 28 Greenwood:?Shortening the Time in the Elementary School, Ed. Rev., Vol. XXIV, pp. 384-390. 29. Harris:?Annual Report of the St. Louis Public Schools, 1871-2, pp. 81-82. 30 Harris:?The Development of the Short Interval System in St. Louis, Com. of Ed. Report, 1898-9, pp. 303-330. 31. Hartwell:?Grading and Promotion of Pupils, Ed. Rev., Vol. X, pp. 375378. 32. Heilman:?The Need for Special Classes in the Public Schools, The Psy. Clin., Vol. I, pp. 104-114. 33. Huysson:?Gradation, Promotion, and Individual Instruction, Ed. Found., Vol. XVIII, pp. 724-730. 34. Jackman:?The School Grade a Fiction, Ed. Rev., Vol. XV, pp. 45G-473. 35. Jones:?A Concrete Example of the Value of Individual Teaching, The Psy. Clin., Vol. II, pp. 190-203. 36. Landan:?Nervose Schulkinder, 1902. 37. Miles:?A Comparison of Elementary and High School Grades, Fed. Sem., Vol. XVII, 1910. 38. Miller:?Progress and Retardation of a Baltimore Class, The Psy. Clin., Vol. Ill, pp. 136-140. 39. Johnson:?Irregular Attendance in the Primary Grades, The Psy. Clin., Vol. Ill, pp. 89-95. 40. Moses:?Die Neuorganisation der Volksschule in Mannheim, Zeitsch. fur Schulgesundhcitspflcgc, Vol. XII, 1899. 41. Moses:?Zur Entwicklung der Schulorganisation auf psychologischer Grundlage, Pacd.-psych. Studicn, Vol. IV, No. 2-3. 42. Moses:?Schulhygienische Betrachtungen iiber Gliederung und Organisation der deutschen Volksschule, Zeitsch. fixr Schulgesundheitspflcge, Vol. XV, 1902. 43. Parkinson:?Promotion, Accelerated and Retarded, Ed., 19, pp. 152-157. 44. Payne:?Elastic Grading, Com. of Educ. Report, 1899-1900, pp. 1376-1377. 45. Prince:?Some New England Plans of Grading and Promotion, Proc. of N. E. A., 1898, pp. 423-432. 46. Prince:?Grading and Promotion of Pupils, Ed. Rev., Vol. XV, pp. 231-245, and Com. of Ed. Report, 1898-99, pp. 349-356. ” 47. Richman:?A Successful Experiment in Promoting Pupils, Ed. Rev., vol. XIII, pp. 29. 48. Rodel:?Zur Frage der Organisation der Volksschule in Mannheim, 1899. 49. Rosier:?’lhe Graded School?Its Strength and its Weakness, Rev. of Ed., Vol. VII, pp. 175-177. 50. Russell:?Exceptional Children in School, Ed. Rev., Vol. VI, pp. 431-442. 51. Search:?Individual Teaching. The Pueblo Plan, Ed. Rev., Vol. VII, 154-170. 52. Search: lhe Pueblo Plan of Individual Teaching, Ed. Rcv.} Vol. VIII, pp. 84-85. 53. Shaw:?Grading and Promotion, Proc. of N. E. A., 1898, pp. 422-123. 54. Shearer:?The Elizabeth Plan of Grading, Proc. of N. E. A., 1898, pp. 441448; and Com. of Ed. Report, 1898-9, pp. 330-335. 55. Squire:?Our Responsibility for Retardation, The Psy. Clin., Vol. IV, No. 2, Apr. 1910, pp. 46-53. 56. Sickinqer: Zur 1 rage der Organisation der Volksschule in Mannheim, 1899. 57. Sickinqer: Ein piidagogisches Gutacliten Herbarts und der Mannheimer Schulorganisation, 1900. 58. Sickinqer:?Die Neuorganisation der Volksschule in Mannheim, 1809. 59. Sickinqer:?Jahresbenchte der Stiidtischen Volksschule in Mannheim, 1900-1910. 60. Soldan:?Shortening the Period of Elementary Schooling, Ed. Rev., Vol. XXV, pp. 16S-181. 61. Tiiorndike:?The Elim. of Children from School, U. S. Bur. Ed. Bui. No. 4, 1907. 62. Tiiorndike: Promotion, Retardation and Elimination,The Phy. Clin., Vol. Ill, op. 232 and 255. 63. Twitmyeii:?Clinical Studies of Retarded Children, The Psy. Clin., Vol. I, pp. 97-103. 64. Van Sickle: lhe Plan of the North Side Schools of Denver, Proc. of STUDY OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 119 N. E. A., 189S, pp. 434-441, and Com. of Ed. Report, 1898-9, pp. 341346. G5. Van Sickle:?Provision for Exceptional Children in Public Schools, The Psy. Clin., Vol. II, pp. 102-111. GG. Young:?Grading and Classification, Proc. of N. E. A., 1893, pp. 83-86. G7. Wagner:?Retardation and Elimination in the Schools of Mauch Chunk Township, The Psy. Clin., Vol. Ill, pp. 164-173. G8. White:?Promotion and Examination in Graded Schools, U. S. Bur. of Ed., Circular, 1891. 69. WiTMEit:?What is Meant by Retardation? The Psy. Clin., Vol. IV, No. 5, Oct., 1910, pp. 121-131. 70. Witmer:?Retardation through Neglect in Children of the Rich, The Psy. Clin., Vol. I, pp. 157-174. 71. Woodward:?When and Why Pupils Leave School, etc., Com. of Ed. Report, Vol. II, 1899-1900, pp. 1364-1374. II. ON THE DYNAMIC ASPECT OF GRADING AND PROMOTION. 72. Aubott:?On the Analysis of the Factor of Recall in the Learning Process, Psy. Rev. Mon. 44, 1909, pp. 131-132. 73. Bell and Muckenhoupt:?A Comparison of Methods of Determination of Ideational Types, Artier. Jour. Psy., Vol. XVII, 1906. 74. Bernstein and Bugdanoff:?Experimente fiber das Verhalten der Merkfiihigkeit bei Schulkindern, Bcitriigc zur Psychologic dcr Aussagc, Vol. II. 75. Betts:?The Distribution and Function of Mental Imagery, Psy Bull., 1910. 76. Biervliet:?La Mdmoire, Paris, 1893. (Amer. Jour, of Psy., Vol. VI.) 77. Boggs:?The Psychology of the Learning Process, Jour, of Philos., Psy., and Scientific Methods, Vol. IV, 1907. 78. Bourdon:?Influence de l’&ge sur la mdmoire immediate, Rev. of Philos., Vol. XXXVIII. 79. Brittain:?A Study in Imagination, Ped. Scm., Vol. XIV, 1907. 80. Burniiam:?Memory, Historically and Experimentally Considered, Amer. Jour, of Psy., 1888-91. 81. Buiit:?Experimental Tests of General Intelligence,Brit. Jour, of Psychology, Dec., 1909, pp. 94-177. 82. Calkins:?A Study of Immediate and of Delayed Recall of the Concrete and of the Verbal, Psy. Rev., Vol. V., 1898. 83. Colvin:?Methods of Determining Ideational Types, Psy. Rev. Bui., Vol. VI 1909. 81. Colvin:?Ideational Types of School Children, Ped. Scm., Vol. XVII, 1909. 85. Colvin and Meyer:?Methods of Determining Ideational Types, Psy. Bui., Vol. VII, 1909. . , _ 86. Colvin and Meyer:?The Development of Imagination in School Children and the Relation between Ideational Types and the Retentivity of the material to the Various Sense Departments, Psy. Mon., Vol. X1,*9^9. 87. Eckhardt:?Visuello Erinnerungsbilder, ZeUsch. fur Exp. Pddagogik, ol. V, 1907. 88. Fernald:?Experimentation in Imagery, Psy. Bui, Vol. VII, 1910. 89. Galton:?Statistics of Mental Imagerv, Mind, Vol. V, 1S90. 90. Hawkins:?Experiments on Memory Types, Psy. Rev., Vol. I>, 1897. 91. Kirkpatrick:?An Experimental Study of Memory, Psy. Rev., oI. i>, 1894. . n ? v 1 VT 92. Kirkpatrick:?Studies in Development and Learning, I sy. Bui., vol. , 1909. 93. Kirkpatrick:?Mental Images, Scicncc, Vol. XXII, 1893. p? ? 94. Largnier de Bancels:?Les mdthodes de memorisation, L An J ?? Vol. VH, 1901. T XT _ 1on7 95. Lay:?Mental Imagery, Psy. Rev. Mon., Vol. II, No- 3, ? n/-^_ 96. MacDougal:?Recognition and Recall, Jour, of 1 hilos., 1 sj. Methods, Vol. I, 1907. . , -?-TTT ion/*. [97. Meyeuiiardt:?Economical Learning, Ped. Scm., ?J- - ‘ 98. Meumann:?Die Experimentelle Piidagogik, ol. 1, P120 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. 99. MttNSTERDERQ:?Psychology and the Teacher, Appleton, 1909. 100. Munsterberg:?Studien zur Assoziationslehre, Beitrage zur experimentellen Psychologie, 1892, Heft 4. 101. Smith:?On the Reading and Memorizing of Meaningless Syllables Presented at Irregular Intervals of Time, Amcr. Jour Psy., Vol. XVIII, 1907. 102. Swift and Schuyler:?The Learning Process, Psy. Bui., Vol. IV, 1907. 103. Stetson:?Types of Imagination, Psy. Rev., Vol. Ill, 1896. 104. Titchener:?Manual of Experimental Psychology, N. Y., Macmillan& Co. 105. Ufer:?Sinnestypen; Rein’s Encyklopadisches Handbuch der Piidagogik, Langensalza, 1903-1910. 106. Whipple:?Manual of Mental and Physical Tests, Warrick & York, Baltimore, Md. 107. Winch:?The Function of Images, Jour, of Philos.,Psy. and Sci. Meth., Vol. V, 1888-1891. 108. Winch:?Immediate Memory in School Children, Brit. Jour, of Psy., Vol. I, 1904.
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.