A Second Study of Mental Fatigue in Relation to the Daily School Program
The Psychological Clinic Copyright 1913, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. VII, No. 2. April 15, 1913 :Author: W. H. Heck, M.A., Professor of Education, University of Virginia.
The author recently published a report1 on an experiment with forty classes, 1153 pupils, in four New York City Schools. The present report deals with a similar experiment with sixteen classes, containing 573 pupils, in three Lynchburg, Va., schools. The important difference between the experiments is the amount of continuous work required by the tests. The New York classes were given four ten minute tests at four periods of the school day, the Lynchburg classes two twenty-five minute tests at two periods. The subject matter used was the same in both experiments, but the Lynchburg classes took two tests as one. The reason for this extension of time was the supposition that a ten minute spurt might not reveal the amount of fatigue present, the pupils working the short test with fairly uniform efficiency at four periods of the school day. A continuous application for twenty-five minutes could hardly fail to reveal most of the fatigue present at the time of starting the test and the further possible fatigue from the longer test itself. If the fatigue from the test itself were equally present in the morning and in the afternoon work, it would be neutralized in the results; but if it were greater in the afternoon on account of greater fatigue at the time of starting, the difference would be added to the latter. The longer test therefore has two possibilities of revealing fatigue and is also a better illustration of the time required, though with less continuous pressure, for study and recitation in actual school practice. ‘Complimentary copies of this monograph will be sent on request. The author is preparing a monograph on the literature of the subject. 2 As the Lynchburg classes were slower in this kind of work, twenty-five rather than twenty minutes were allowed.
The Lynchburg tests were given on February 25 and 27, 1913, to the 5A, 5B, 6A, and GB classes in Biggers School; on Februar}’ 26 and 28 to the 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B classes in Monroe School; on March 11 and 13 to the 7B, 7A, 6B, and 6A1 classes in Federal School; on March 12 and 14 to the 6A2, 5B1, 5B2, and 5A classes in Federal School. The weather was mild, and window ventilation was used in addition to the furnace system. The schools had a onesession day, with a fifteen minute recess soon after the morning tests and a twenty (sometimes fifteen) minute recess before the afternoon tests. During the second recess many pupils ate lunch at home or school. This recess probably increased the efficiency in the afternoon tests; but as every school has or should have a recess near this period of the school day, the conditions of the Lynchburg tests were typical, certainly for a one-session school day. The departmental system of instruction allowed no uniform program of recitations and study periods in the classes tested. The children represented for the most part hygienic opportunities at home and had been examined by their teachers for eyesight and hearing. All the classes included both boys and girls, the total being 292 boys and 281 girls. The average age was 12.55 years.
The following description is condensed and adapted from the report before mentioned, to which the reader is referred for further discussion. The departmental teacher put aside her work for my test but remained in the room at my request. I gave detailed directions to the class and then with the help of the teacher put on each desk a test paper with the blank side up. After the name, etc., had been written, the children turned the papers over immediately on signal and worked steadily for twenty-five minutes. Great care was taken to be exact in starting and stopping. The children thought they were being examined for correctness and speed but did not know how much time was being allowed and did not rush toward the end. The very few children who finished before the time was out looked over part of their papers. The spirit of the work was pleasant and earnest, and reduced to a minimum the element of boredom, probably the greatest influence in decreasing the quantity and quality of work in the ordinary routine of the school day.
The time schedule was so arranged as to test each class in the morning and in the afternoon. The classes were combined into groups of two, one being a half-grade below (A) or above (B)’the other. The first class in a group took the first test in the morning of the first day and the second test in the afternoon of the second day following; the second class took the first test in the afternoon of the first day and the second test in the morning of the second day after. In this way the practice effect of the first class in the second test in the afternoon was balanced against that of the second class in the morning and consequently neutralized, leaving the fatigue effect free for comparison at the two periods. This arrangement was based upon a belief in the approximate equality of the practice effect in the two classes in a group. Even the slight differences that might have occurred were neutralized by giving the second test in the morning to the B classes and in the afternoon to the A classes of the first four groups, and then by giving the second test in the morning to the A classes and in the afternoon to the B classes of the second four groups.3 Two groups were tested in a day, the two classes of the first group at about 9:20 a. m. and 1:30 p. m. respectively and the two classes of the second group at about 9:50 a. m. and 2:00 p. m. respectively. On the second day following, the classes tested before in the morning were tested in the afternoon, and vice versa; but the classes of the second group followed as before immediately after the corresponding classes of the first group, each group constituting a complete unit by itself with the same time relationship between the classes as in all the other groups. Testing two groups a day gave a wider representation of the school day, fifty minutes of morning work and fifty minutes of afternoon work.
The papers were graded by me by a gross method of counting answers only, very similar to that used by Mr. Courtis. Each test contained thirty-two points divided as follows: Two groups of two examples were each credited with one point, this point being counted wrong on account of one or more mistakes in either example; ten examples were each credited with one point, the point being counted wrong on account of one or more mistakes in the example; ten examples were each credited with two points, one point being counted wrong on account of one mistake, and two points being counted wrong on account of two or more mistakes, in the example. A gross method of counting answers over-emphasizes mistakes in proportion to the total amount of work done, not only at one period but even in a comparison between the percentage of error at two or more periods. The results of my New York tests showed that in the same papers the average increase in percentage of error at the three periods after the first period was by the gross method 3.2659 times that by the detailed method of counting every figure put down by a child in working the examples. The increase in percentage of error in the present results at the second period is therefore greater than the actual decrease in efficiency of the children tested. However, the gross ‘One group was composed of 6A2 and 5B1, with the half-year relationship between classes as in the other groups but with different grades.
method takes far less time for grading papers and is sufficiently accurate for comparison of the work at periods to which it has been uniformly applied. Total Results School Biggers. Monroe Federal Claa 5A 513 6A 613 5A 513 6A 6B 7B 7A 6B 6A1 GA2 5B1 5B2 5A 10 Pupils 43 43 44 39 34 4G 35 32 33 41 30 28 33 34 28 30 573 First Period Test Right Wrong feuin of right and wrong points Relative amount done Per cent right Relative per cent right. 12.07 15.53 15.01 19.21 14.09 15.04 17.17 21.00 19.04 19.27 15.00 21.80 14.01 17.24 12.04 14.40 10.00 22.91 100.00 72.40 100.00 5.02 7.42 7.34 7.10 0.44 7.20 4.54 0.02 5.00 7.12 5.27 7.04 5.33 7.09 5.96 0.37 0.31 Second Period Test Right Wrong 10.53 12.79 10.04 18.18 15.15 10.90 20.14 10.59 21.33 10.98 17.83 18.43 17.09 14.38 15.90 11.47 10.28 23.18 101.18 70.23 90.92 0.14 0.51 9.23 0.23 8.50 0.39 0.54 5.94 7.12 6.66 6.80 7.54 0.58 0.41 7.18 0.00 0.90
1 he average of right and wrong points for the sixteen classes at each period were added and the general average taken, in which all individual, class, and group variations were merged. The sum of the general average of right and wrong points at the first period was compared with that at the second period, giving an increase of 1.18 per cent at the^ second period. The percent right of the sum of right and wrong points at the first period was then compared with the per cent light at the second period, giving a decrease of 3.08 per cent at the second period. I he increase in quantity was probably due in part to the same influences as was the decrease in quality, greater speed and greater carelessness often going together.
Even the slight decrease in efficiency shown by these results is larger than the actual decrease in the classes tested, because in Federal School the 5A class was somewhat disturbed in its afternoon work by the marching out of the other classes, and because the 7B and 6B classes had only a short indoor recess, on account of rain, before the afternoon tests. This is partly shown, though other influences may have entered, by the increase in quantity of 2.08 per cent and the decrease in quality of 3.37 per cent in the eight classes in the Federal School, as compared with the increase in quantity of 0.22 per cent and the decrease in quality of 2.79 per cent in the eight classes in Biggers and Monroe School.
As the average per cent of increase in quantity in the New York tests, for the three periods after the first period, was by the detailed method of grading 1.0164 times that by the gross method, we can surmise that the 1.18 per cent increase in quantity in the Lynchburg tests, by the gross method would be about 1.20 per cent by the detailed method. And as the average decrease in quality in the New York tests was by the detailed method only 0.3062 times that by the gross method, we can surmise that the 3.08 per cent decrease in quality in the Lynchburg tests would be about 0.94 per cent by the detailed method.
By a comparison of the results by the gross method in the twentyfive minute test in the afternoon in Lynchburg with the average of the two ten minute tests in the afternoon in New York, we have 1.18 per cent increase in quantity in Lynchburg as compared with 1.84 per cent, and 3.08 per cent decrease in quality as compared with 5.61 per cent. In spite of the longer requirement for continuous work, the Lynchburg children show a smaller decrease in efficiency, probably on account of their better hygienic opportunities at home. In order to determine whether the decrease in efficiency at the second period in Lynchburg were less in the more advanced grades, the following percentages were calculated: six fifth grades (three groups) showed an increase in quantity of 0.11 per cent and a decrease in quality of 2.82 per cent; six sixth grades (three groups) showed an increase in quantity of 0.36 per cent and a decrease in quality of 2.74 per cent; two seventh grades (one group) showed an increase in quantity of 2.08 per cent and a decrease in quality of 3.54 per cent. These slight differences seem to have no significance, the greater decrease in quality in the seventh grades being due mainly to the fact before mentioned that 7B had only a short indoor recess before the afternoon test.
An important consideration is the greater decrease in efficiency shown by the boys than by the girls, this difference even being noticeable in the greater restlessness of the boys during the tests. Complete tables of the sixteen class averages were made of the results by the boys and the girls, and the general averages, percentages, etc., were calculated. The boys showed an increase in quantity of 0.74 per cent and a decrease in quality of 4.25 per cent; the girls showed an increase in quantity of 1.62 per cent and a decrease in quality of 1.96 per cent. The boys showed an increase in quantity 0.4568 times that by the girls and a decrease in quality 2.1684 times that by the girls.
The practice effect was calculated by rearranging the class averages in columns according to tests rather than periods, thus neutralizing for the most part the decrease in efficiency at the second period. The sixteen classes showed an increase in quantity of 13.22 per cent in the second test and a decrease in quality of 0.50 per cent.
The results of the twenty-five minute tests in Lynchburg greatly strengthen the conclusions from the ten minute tests in New York. The decrease in efficiency in the afternoon tests must have been due in part to unhygienic conditions in school, home, and children; but however much of this decrease we attribute to fatigue, the fatigue is still so slight as to be almost negligible in a hygienic school environment, except in regard to the few easily fatigued individuals.
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.