Individual Differences in School Children
The Psychological Clinic Copyright 1913, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. VI, No. 9. February 15, 1913 :Author: Elmer E. Jones, Ph.D.,
Professor of the History and Philosophy of Education, Indiana ^ University, Bloomington, Ind.
Until recently the interest of public education has been directed to the great average of childhood with little reference to the two extremes of the probability curve, one end representing defectives and the other end accelerates. It is obvions that methods of education have neglected, at one end of the curve, a certain percentage of individuals who have meagre inherent capacities, and who are eventually turned from our schools upon society, a prey to it, and a real drainage upon our resources. Such children are by no means being brought to a state of efficiency and self support by our public schools, nor are they given the training which will make them a social and industrial asset to the community. On the other hand the accelerate, the pupil of brilliant mind, is equally unfortunate. He enters school with capabilities two or three times as great as the average child, and yet must be moulded into conformity with him. He is habituated and disciplined in the routine of the school adapted to the child far below him in intellectual capacity, and thus suffers retardation in his progress just as real and even more pathetic, than is experienced by his defective school mate. He is given little opportunity to grow to his full capacity, to develop clear up to his psychological and physiological limit. It is impossible for us to calculate at present by any statistical method at hand, how much society has really lost from the retardation of the brilliant child by our present system. Throughout the whole history of our public schools, youths of exceptional ability have been bored, dwarfed, atrophied, side-tracked, discouraged, and lost to society. It is at this end of the curve of mental ability that we should expect to find our leaders, and our best thinkers in every department of learning, provided there were given in our system of education the opportunity for such minds to develop freely and fully.
Many of the psychological measurements of children in the grades show that pupils sitting side by side in regular classes vary decidedly in ability. Recently forty-two children in a sixth grade were given a controlled association test consisting of forty words to be remembered. The distribution of their records may be seen from the following table. The words remembered are arranged for convenience into groups of five. TABLE I. Words Remembered Distribution of Pupils 0 to 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 10 21 to 25 15 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40
This measure of the ability of these forty-two children with reference to associative memory shows that two individuals made a perfect score, three remembered between thirty and thirty-five words, while four remembered less than ten words, the largest number (fifteen), remembering between twenty and twenty-five words. In this mental test we have the whole range of ability from almost total failure to a perfect score. Yet these children day after day sit in the same classroom, are assigned the same tasks, recite the same lessons, pass through the same school routine, until by suggestion, imitation, and conformity in instruction, the weak ones are made weaker, because of the establishing of many bad habits, such as lying and cheating, and resort to strategy to present an appearance of intelligence; while those who can make a perfect score in such a test of native ability are also made weaker because their reactions and habits are made to conform to mediocrity, and bad habits, such as laziness, loafing, and cheating, are frequently established.
Another test was made upon forty children of a fifth grade to determine the individual differences in auditory reaction. Twenty tests on each child were taken in order that a fair average might be obtained from each, and in order that the first few trials might be thrown out, when the child was not yet familiar with the experiment. Table TI shows the means and mean variations of the reactions of each child. A modification of the Bergstrom chronoscope was used for the tests.
This test measures the power of attention, quickness of perception, fatigue, the rapidity of the flow of the nerve current from sensory to motor parts and out to the musculature, quickness of muscles to respond when reached by the motor current, etc. It is a very good test to determine quantitively individual differences in the capacity to respond quickly and efficiently to a given stimulus. The above table speaks for itself with reference to the several abilities of the individual children in this grade. The poorest record is that made by No. 27, whose average reaction for
TABLE II. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean 18.5.2 150.6 224.5 362.1 280.4 302.1 405.3 224.6 186.2 199.0 M. V. 12.2 8.7 18.4 15.8 24.6 10.1 16.2 27.3 14.7 12.6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mean M. V. 245.4 276.3 412.3 214.6 326.4 196.9 241.7 126.3 301.4 265.3 13.8 21.5 32.2 14.7 15.6 8.3 5.8 9.5 18.4 12.7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mean 215.8 225.7 264.3 185.6 225.3 301.4 416.9 281.3 179.0 30 205.6 M. V. 12.9 15.6 10.1 14.8 16.4 21.1 11.2 20.5 15.8 10.1 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Mean 304.2 261.9 320.8 226.4 316.1 288.4 304.2 274.1 159.8 244.4 M. v. 20.5 7.3 16.2 31.4 20.5 12.7 9.2 13.1 18.0 11.6
twenty trials is 410.9 with a mean variation of 11.2. It is probable, however, that No. 13 is equally bad because of the high mean variation. In the twenty trials the mean variation is 32.2. This shows extreme variability in the subject’s capacity for definite action as a result of a sense stimulus. No dependence can be placed in this individual for regularity of action under standard conditions. It happens also that this record reveals the characteristic defect in this child’s nature throughout, as discovered by consultation with his teachers and parents, and from the actual records of his achievement in school work.
A study of this table astonishes one by the individual differences found among the children of this one grade. Their motor reactability varies from the lowest to the highest as from 1 : 3^. If this be taken as a measure of attention, such variation in this mental trait is certainly significant for education. If one child’s attentive power is double that of his mate, other factors remaining about equal, obviously they cannot long remain in the same school classification without injury to both. The table illustrates too the difference in regularity of performance as shown by the mean variations. A slow reaction is not necessarily a sign of stupidity or even of mental slowness, provided the reactions have a rather constant time and remain consistent throughout. But when the variation from a mean begins to run high we at once suspect a weakness in attention, and a susceptibility to fatigue. Hie remarkable thing is that the school classifies children according to biological age, irrespective of the abilities shown in such a test. It is needless to say that the attempt to train children under such a classification is fruitless. This fact must be given as a cause of retardation, failure of promotion, irregularity, lack of interest, etc., as well as the much discussed factors of parental influence, community ideals, and bad environment. By the use of a tacliistoscope thirty-six pupils in the eighth grade of a public school were tested in visual memory. The instrument was so constructed that the subject sat in front of the eye piece and at a given signal the shutter was opened exposing to view ten familiar objects placed on a screen. The objects were arranged at random, though clearly within the range and focus of the eye, so that the subject could orientate the eye over them at will. At the end of a second and a half the shutter was closed and subject was asked to name all the objects he saw. Ten different screens were used with each child in the grade and the score kept for each test. The table below gives the result.
TABLE III. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean M. V. 3.4 4.6 4.8 5.7 6.1 5.2 7.1 3.4 3.8 5.1 2.6 4.9 .2 .3 .6 .3 2 .7 1.3 1.4 .9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean 6.4 3.5 2.8 4.9 6.8 4.1 3.2 7.4 6.1 5.8 3.7 6.2 M. V. 1.2 .4 1.8 3.1 .5 .9 .8 .1 .5 .4 .8 .4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Mean 5.2 4.1 6.3 5.3 3.5 6.8 5.2 4.6 4.8 3.9 6.3 5.7 M. V. .4 1.2 .6 2.1 .9 3.2 .3 .5 .7 .6 .8 1.1 6.3 I 1.03
This test does more than merely test visual memory. It determines to some extent quickness of perception, facility in moving the eye rapidly from one object to another, accuracy in perceiving objects in the marginal field of vision, clearness of the visual image, etc. By such a test in ten trials one can determine pretty accurately whether the child is visual, or whether he depends upon some other sense for the impressions which he later organizes into an apperceptive background.
The table is rather significant. The lowest record is 2.6 and the mean is 6.3, while the highest is 7.4. It seems impossible that children presenting such great differences in visual memory should be assigned the same lessons, expecting them to perform visual tasks, at least, with any degree of conformity. When we find such a high degree of variation in visualizing as is shown in this group of children, and then when we see them definitely grouped for the performance of the same tasks, we ask how can this meet with the ideals of education in a democracy,?equal opportunity for all. The same stimuli may be given in the assignment of work for this group, but it is quite impossible to see what advantage there is in so doing. Teachers are usually ignorant of the simple facts shown in the above tables, and in educational practice in general no attention whatever has been given to the classification of children upon their various psychological abilities. Classification is largely based upon biological age. Suppose we give the above group of children a visual task suited to the median, it is still so far above the capacities of the lower ones that they cannot perform it; while it is so far below the abilities of the superior children that their powers are really atrophied in being required to perform it. This same group of thirty-six children was tested for auditory memory. Ten lists of words, the names of common objects, were read to the class, and after the reading of each list, the pupils were asked to write down as many words as they could remember. Table IV shows the results. It should be said that the children in these two tests have the same numbers throughout, so that it is easy to compare individual records in visual and auditory memory by glancing at the results opposite the same number in each table. We see here the same remarkable individual differences that were observed in the visual memory. The interesting fact is that there does not appear to be much correlation between the two sets of tests. Good visualizers are not necessarily good in auditory perceptions, nor vice versa. In fact, the actual correlation as worked out by the Pearson formula gives a negative result. These data would seem to indicate that each child early develops certain tendencies in his learning experiences, which are either visual or auditory, but seldom both. Learning becomes easy through one channel and difficult through the other. Whether this is due to inherent tendencies in the nervous system or whether it is due to the formation of habits, we are by no means able to decide from the data at hand for this particular group of children. The fact merely stands out definitely that within a group selected and
TABLE IV. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean 5.2 4.8 7.1 6.5 7.8 3.8 8.5 8.4 6.8 5.2 4.7 3.8 M. V. .2 .7 .4 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 .7 1.2 .5 .9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean 6.9 7.4 8.1 7.2 6.5 9.2 8.4 5.3 4.6 8.5 3.5 5.6 M. V. .4 .5 .6 .6 .3 .4 .8 .7 1.1 .3 .5 .4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Mean 4.6 8.3 7.1 6.3 7.8 5.4 4.1 6.2 3.7 9.1 5.4 6.2 M. V. .3 .5 .4 1.1 .3 .5 .8 .7 .5 1.2 .3 .7
graded for educational purposes by the public schools, there are such great differences in these perceptive powers as to render the stimuli of the schoolroom inadequate to produce the desired results. Fifteen children were selected at random from the fourth grade in the public schools of a large city and were tested as to the rapidity with which they could place all the blocks in the form board. (The type of board employed was that used by Professor Witmer in the Psychological Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, for the determination of defectiveness.) Each child was given ten trials, and at each trial the board was turned at a different angle, in order to keep the child from learning definite positions for each block. The test showed the child’s real ability to see the hole in the board of a definite shape, to perceive the corresponding block, and make the motor response necessary to place it in position. The table below shows the individual differences in skill in doing this task, and reveals something of the individual differences in practice or learning. For each child a short practice or learning curve is shown, and also the number of errors.
This test, like the preceding ones, deals chiefly with native powers, not with habits gained through education. The perception of form may have been cultivated, but the special task of perceiving a form, associating it with the proper hole in the board, bringing about a coordinated movement to place the form in the hole,?all this depends largely upon capacities that are free from the influence of training. Consequently it is a very good test of native ability for doing this special thing. The records are interesting,
Subjects Tests 32.4 9 ‘ E o fSh W 20.2 3 ‘ E o H 18.6 24.4 30.2 15.4 17.8 16.S 26.4 18.2 18.2 26.2 31.4 14.2 16.4 17.0 21.8 15.6 20.4 19.8 24.6 15.6 12.8 15.2 17.6 14.8 18.8 20.4 25.2 18.4 15.4 12.8 18.8 14.2 15.8 22.2 20.6 14.2 14.6 16.4 20.2 15.4 14.6 20.6 22.8 16.8 18.6 16.2 15.4 16.4 15.4 16.4 18.4 15.8 12.2 15.8 12.6 1 18.2 13.8 15.S 19.2 14.2 3 12.4 16.2 S 12.S 14.4 1 13.2 12.8 20.4 15.2 12.0 15.4 10 10.6 14.2 14.6 13.4 18.0 12.8 11.8 14.0 M 18.8 16.1 16.3 19.2 23.0 15.2 14.4 15.6 Ss 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tests ? _ ? ? ? ? ‘ W 19.4 2 30.6 2 22.2 2 24.8 1 18.2 3 18.8 1 24.6 2 17.8 3 28.4 1 18.6 1 18.6 2 18.4 2 18.2 4 25.4 21.8 5 28.2 3 15.8 3 15.8 3 19.6 1 19.4 3 22.8 20.4 2 31.6 4 17.8 2 20.4 1 20.4 2 20.0 2 30.2 15.6 4 25.8 1 15.2 3 22.6 4 18.8 4 16.2 2 21.6 18.4 3 27.6 2 15.0 4 18.2 1 16.2 2 14.4 1 20.8 12.2 2|24.4 3 12.8 1 15.4 1 15.0 1 14.8 1 18.4 15.0 5 20.8 2 14.6 2 20.2 2 21.2 3 16.4 2 16.8 3 14.4 3 21.4 1 14.0 3 18.4 1 16.4 1 13.8 1 16.8 10 14.2 2 19.6 1 19.0 4 22.4 2 17.2 2 14.0 1 17.2 mT 16.9 25.8 ~~ 16.5 19.7 18.1 ~ 16.6 ~ 21.4
showing great variation both in the initial efforts and also in the final efforts after a practice of ten trials. The initial efforts vary from 16.8 as a minimum to 32.4 as the maximum with a mean of 22.3, while the final efforts vary from 10.6 to 22.4 with a mean of 15.5. The test is fairly representative of a large number of school performances which are usually assigned to a class as a whole, irrespective of the abilities of the children. For example, the psychological process involved is closely related to that of reading or writing or drawing from a model, or many of the tasks assigned in the manual arts. It is clear that a classification of children on any other ground than that of efficiency in some such test as the above, would result in a large amount of the motor work of that class being a failure. It is curious that educators will go on, accepting the most miserable results in many fields of school work, without attempting to clear up the matter with psychological tests, making diagnoses of special cases at the two ends of the curve of efficiency, and reclassifying on the basis of the diagnoses. Fifty-one children of the sixth grade were recently tested by the use of the Courtis test E”o. IV, which is a speed test for short division. This involves teaching and training,?certain definite drill and instruction in a process regarded as fundamental in arithmetic. It is fair to assume that in this class the process of short division had been emphasized for at least three years, and that the children represent fairly well an average American sixth grade. This test provides so large a number of easy problems in short division that no child can finish all of them in one minute. The record of each child can then be scored as to the number of problems attempted and the number of errors made. It is a direct measure of the efficiency of certain learned reactions in children, and shows distinctly the individual differences in this ability. In scoring this test Mr. Courtis says that the errors can practically be ignored because of the small number made. In fact there were none at all made by the fifty-one children, and we have only to consider the number of problems attempted during the one minute.
The table below indicates the scores. TABLE VI. Number attempted Number pupils Below 15 15-24 25-34 20 35-44 18 45-54 55-05
It is obvious that in this ability, which is the result of education, the individual differences are great enough to warrant a reclassification. If three years of training in a task shows such extreme variation, it certainly is folly to perpetuate it. The child with the lowest score made about one-fourth as many points as the two with the highest, the latter two showing at least twice as much ability as the ones in the median group.
The above test shows just what has been found over and over again in many ways, viz., normal children do not respond equally to the various stimuli presented to them, not because they are necessarily deficient, but because they are not adapted to respond to this special educational procedure equally. A class may be graded at the beginning of the year with reference to their several capacities to undertake the work of that year. This grading may have been made strictly on the basis of psychological tests, but by the end of the year the members of the class are so far separated from each other in the various abilities they have shown in their education, that it is again necessary to reclassify, if each child is to do his best work.
Ten girls were selected at random from the sixth grade and tested in reading ability. They were each given the same selection to read, a piece of descriptive prose which contained ten important facts to be remembered. The facts were not of equal importance, doubtless, but were of such a character that any one of them might stand out distinctly in the mind of certain individuals. The girls were graded on their ability by means of a score on each of the following:?expression, fluency, number of errors, and their ability to reproduce the thought.
Here is a test of ability which depends somewhat upon the training received in the schoolroom. Of course, native ability counts for much, too, but the manner in which a child in the sixth grade reads depends rather more upon the training received than any other factor, provided of course we are not dealing with defectives or feebleminded individuals. These children are apparently all normal, though there is considerable variation in the home training. The results shown in the table are of the same character as those brought out in the preceding tables. It is inconceivable that such individual differences should be found in normal children having had practically the same training for a period of years. It seems to indicate all too clearly that the teaching has fallen in some places on fertile ground, and in other places on decidedly stony ground. Instruction has not been adapted to the individual child, consequently there are normal individuals who are retarded in reading and never will be able to read the printed page intelligently. They may struggle along and read in a half intelligent manner throughout their lives, but certainly the great world of thought in the literatures of the race will remain forever unknown.
TABLE VII. Subject Expression Fluency Errors Thought Fair Read with difficulty. Could only recall scattering thoughts. Very good. Read with great rapidity. Retold the story very well. Good. A good deal of stoppage on difficult words. 15 Chief thoughts remembered. Poor. Read slowly, with great hesitation at times. 12 About one-half of story remembered. Very poor Many words could not be pronounced at all. 10 Seemed to get no thought at all from passage read. Excellent. Very fluent, all words quickly pronounced. Practically whole story retold verv well. Very good Read rather slowly but 2 with precision. Could only recall three out of ten of the main points of the story. Fair. Read with a very slow, drawling tone. Remembered very little of passage read. Good. Read rapidly but repeated many words. Recalled about one-half of what was read. 10 Poor. Read very slowly; stumbled on hard words. 10 Practically nothing remembered.
iSTot only so, but they will not be able intelligently to grasp the easier reading matter in our current newspapers and magazines. Such simple tests as are recorded above can be made in any school system, if it is desirable to duplicate these records. Many such studies are now being made, and the result is already proving fruitful. City superintendents and school administrators of all sorts are awake to the growing problem of the individual child. We should not be teaching groups of children, but we should teach children; and superintendents are now fully aware of the folly of many of our recent pedagogical doctrines. Class instruction must be modified to meet the needs of individual children. Two elements are needed, and will come within the next decade, viz., the psycho-clinicist, whose business it will be to measure the intelligence and physical ability of every child at least once a year; and the complete modification of the course of study so that the individual child will be completely cared for, whether he be subnormal, normal, or accelerate.
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.