Measuring Efficiency of Instruction
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1913, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. VII, No. 6 November 15, 1913
- Author:
William E. Grady,
Principal Public School 64, Manhattan, New York, N. Y.
If the ethical problem of education is to promote such an organization of society as will enable each individual to do the work for which he is best fitted, the essential requirements are not only a diversified curriculum to insure accurate adjustment of the process to individual needs and capacities, but also the development of standards and scales of measurement such as will enable us to measure the success of the instruction process in terms of the individual. While it is probably impossible at this time to outline a specific method for measuring the effectiveness of our work, it is not difficult to indicate several important factors, many of them at present ignored, which are fundamental to the establishment of any such standards.
Assuming in spite of the present confusion of ideals, that we had a definitely formulated aim which could stand the test of scientific criticism, and which would be not only broad enough to be true to the splendid variety of human nature, but also specific enough to make it a proper measure of the intensive and vital individuality of each pupil, it would still be difficult if not impossible at present to measure the effectiveness of the educational process, because we do not measure in terms of physical endowment and native mental capacity the pupils for whom such an aim must be realized. For example, at present pupils entering the first year classes are grouped and instructed on the assumption that because they have reached the chronological age of six years, they must be alike as regards mental maturity despite the wide variations in nationality, physical and mental endowments, and specialized environmental experiences. Within the last few years we have witnessed partial attempts to insure homogeneity of the pupil groups under instruction by the elimination of the blind, the deaf, the tubercular, and the mentally deficient. The day should speedily come when all children on admission to school will be subjected to a thorough examination, inclusive not only of the child’s learning but also of his physical condition and native mental ability. Inasmuch as there are well-established norms of stature, weight, ^thoracic and cranial capacity, acuity of vision and hearing, we ought to know at the initial stage of the pupil’s school career in what respects he is subnormal, normal or super-normal in order that such knowledge may be the fundamental basis of pedagogical endeavor. “Biometry and bio-statistics lift the child out of a general class and present him to the teacher’s eyes as a living individual.”
Great as is the need of sizing up our incoming pupil in physical terms, still greater is the need of testing his mental capacity upon his admission to school. The assumption that as regards mentality children are all the same or all about alike finds no basis in fact. As soon as we apply tests of native ability, whether they be those of Binet and Simon, or the more eclectic scales that are being developed rapidly, we discover an astounding variation in native ability, a fact which must receive explicit recognition in any attempt to measure the effectiveness of our work. You cannot garner souls from the four corners of the earth without reaping a few of the supremely talented of god-like vision, a bulk of mediocrity, constituting what one writer calls “the ballast of civilization,” and lastly a harvest of thorns and thistles, of moral, mental and physical debris. An application of the Binet scale to the children in the schools of Vineland, New Jersey, showed that of 1547 so-called average pupils, 616 were from one to six years retarded, 582 were normal, and 349 were from one to four years better than normal. Can it be doubted that if our first year group were subjected to testing, a corresponding variation in ability would appear?
Without amplifying the discussion it may be sufficient to state that until we recognize the problem of individuality, and at the very outset of our work determine the physical and mental equipment of each pupil, we are in no position to measure with any degree of accuracy the work expended in bringing the pupil group up to a given standard, much less decide whether the teacher, the pupil, the method, or the curriculum is the cause of our failure to reach desired results. However, it is apparent that the evaluation of work costing $40,000,000 a year can hardly be postponed until such educational aims have been formulated and until pupils have been scientifically classified. Modes of valuation, the establishment of standards and scales of measurement are a present need. It is interesting therefore to refer briefly to two recent attempts to measure the effectiveness of the teaching in our city schools In his recent attempt to pass judgment upon the quality of instruction in the schools of our city, Professor McMurry consciously rejected the customary modes of judging the efficiency of instruction in terms of examinations of pupils in subject matter. He claims that under average conditions, tests or examination are of little positive value as sole standards for judging efficiency for several reasons. In the first place such testing depends too much upon accidental conditions such as recency of review, freedom from embarrassment or excitement. In the second place, such tests tend to over-emphasize the value of a retentive memory and a fund of information rather than reasoning ability and correct methods of study. In the third place, certain higher effects of instruction as distinguished from the mere accumulation of information or habits of study cannot be measured by the average tests. Finally such tests do little beyond revealing the present status, and standards for judging the effectiveness of instruction should be so chosen as to suggest the direction that further progress might take. Rejecting therefore the customary mode of testing as a means of determining the effectiveness of the instruction process, he assumes as a fundamental thesis that a curriculum is good to the extent to which it contains problems mental, moral, aesthetic, and economic that are socially vital and yet within the pupil’s appreciation, and that the method of presenting the curriculum is good to the extent to which the method exemplifies ways of solving problems found most effective by the world’s intelligent workers.
Because of their universality, Professor McMurry states that the following four factors were considered worthy of acceptance as standards for judging the efficiency of instruction:?
Motive:
Inasmuch as a man’s aims or motives in terms of their quality, their variety and their intensity determine his character, one of the primary responsibilities of instruction is to develop motives, to lead the pupil to want, to know, to do, and to be. Instruction cannot rest satisfied with cold facts alone. Its quality is to be measured partly in terms of its provision for growth in motive.
Initiative:
In the world at large, perhaps the most highly valued quality of character is the power of initiative, the ability to act as a leader not only in one’s own affairs but in the affairs of others. Children can act largely under the influence of a dominating personality called the teacher, but in the last analysis they must be self directing. It follows therefore that the school should consciously aim to direct the power of self direction. To the extent to which the instruction process requires that as children progress through the grades, they bear increasingly the responsibility for decision as to the origination and the execution of work, just to that extent is the work characterized by initiative.
Judgment or consideration of values:
Inasmuch as life’s situations constantly thrust considerations of worth to the foreground of both adult and pupil experience, school instruction should consciously aim to develop the same critical attitude that life’s situations demand. In other words, effective instruction should result in the development of sound judgment. There should be fewer recitations in history, geography, literature or any other subject, in which the varying values of facts and tasks are not distinguished.
Organization of thought:
Inasmuch as a factor of special importance in daily life is the organization of ideas, a fundamental aim of instruction should be so to group and relate the material presented that the pupil will be possessed of definite, conceptual systems of thought which will be the basis of ample, organized expression.
No intelligent critic of the teaching process can deny the superlative value of these descriptive, subjective standards as partial measures of the efficiency of instruction and as a strong reminder of the defects of the traditional mode of testing by means of examinations that tend to put a premium on memoriter instruction. But does not the fact that the application of such criteria led Professor McMurry to conclude that the working theory of our schools seemed to be directed systematically away from such standards, indicate the need of supplementing them in every way possible? Inasmuch as definite, concrete expression of knowledge such as the best type of the traditional tests demand, is also a very real index of the effectiveness of instruction, we still face the question: What means shall we adopt to stimulate motive, to spur initiative, to test judgment and to measure organization of thought?
The use of the Courtis tests in arithmetic illustrates a very recent and interesting attempt to solve this problem. The application of the test was an attempt to supplement such subjective standards as Professor McMurry proposes, by definite objective scales of measurement which enable one to judge the extent of the pupil’s accomplishment and the effectiveness of the teacher’s work. On the basis of tests covering 10,000 pupils in seventy schools in ten different states, Prof. Courtis has devised eight arithmetical tests involving:
1. Copying of numbers during a time span of one minute. 2, 3, 4, 5. Combinations in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division during periods of one minute each. 6. Computations involving the four fundamental operations during a period of twelve minutes.
7, 8. Problem groups in one of which operations are merely indicated; in the other of which the work is carried to completion during spans of six minutes each.
Extending his investigations to 52 schools, 913 classes and 33,000 pupils, he concluded that the application of these uniform tests to all grades revealed the following:
That grade grouping as an index of arithmetical attainment has very little significance.
(b) That there is great variation in the abilities of the pupils in any given grade. He concludes that testing 4B grades as at present organized will reveal the following,?
45 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of the grade. 35 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of the next
higher (grade 5A).
25 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of grade 5B. 15 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of grade 6A. 10 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of grade 6B. 5 per cent of the grade will exceed the average of grade 7A.
In like manner
35 per cent of the grade will fall below the 4A average. 25 per cent of the grade will fall below the 3B average. 15 per cent of the grade will fall below the 3A average. 10 per cent of the grade will fall below the 2B average. 5 per cent of the grade will fall below the 2A average.
That accuracy has been sacrificed for speed.
(d) That the proficiency obtained in abstract work which is as high or higher than that ordinarily obtained, has been obtained at the expense of reasoning ability.
The vital importance of Mr. Courtis’ work lies in the fact that on the basis of extended investigation, he has developed a certain measuring scale of proficiency that is applicable not only to individual pupils but also to a school or to a system. Despite the fact that such standards are tentative, that the problems employed and the conclusions drawn with reference to reasoning ability should be subjected to critical analysis, the fact remains that were such standards generally adopted they would undoubtedly do much to place arithmetical instruction on a sounder basis. The supervisor, the teacher, and the pupil would work more intelligently and more effectively if such terms as rapidity and accuracy found in most courses of study, were reduced to the degree of definiteness indicated by the Courtis tests.
The following table with Mr. Courtis’ interpretation will serve to indicate more clearly what is meant:
STANDARD SCORES.
Test No. Grade 3. . ” 4. . ” 5. . ” 6. . ” 7. . ” 8. . ” 9. . No. 1 Copying 58 72 86 99 110 117 120 (1 min.) No. 2 Addition 26 34 42 50 58 63 65 (1) No. 3 Subtraction 19 25 31 38 44 49 50 (1) No. 4 Mult. No. 5 Div. 16 23 30 37 44 49 50 (1) No. 6 Compt. Ats. Rts. 5.0 2.7 7.0 3.3 9.0 4.9 11.0 6.6 13.0 8.3 14.4 10.0 15.0 11.0 (12) No. 7 Problems no operat’n Ats. Ilts. 2.7 2.1 3.7 3.0 4.8 4.0 5.8 5.0 6.8 6.0 7.8 7.0 8.6 7.8 (6) No. 8 Problems operation Ats. Rts. 2.0 1.1 2.6 1.7 3.1 2.2 3.7 2.8 4.2 3.4 4.8 4.0 5.0 4.3 (6)
“Translating this table into words: At the end of a year’s work an eighth-grade child should be able to copy figures in pencil on paper at the rate of 117 figures per minute; to write answers to multiplication combinations at the rate of 49 answers per minute; to read simple one-step problems of approximately 30 words in length and decide upon the operation to be used in their solution at the rate of 8 examples a minute with an accuracy of 90 per cent; to work abstract examples of approximately 10 figures (twice as many for addition) at the rate of 14.4 examples in 10 minutes with an accuracy of 70 per cent; to solve two-step problems of approximately 10 figures at the rate of 5 in 6 minutes with an accuracy of 75 per cent. At the present time 70 per cent of the eighth-grade children cannot meet these standards. But it must be borne in mind that 3 per cent of the fifth-grade children can, and that experience has shown that individual care and a very little well-managed drill produces marked changes in the ability of most children.” To state that in a certain grade, in a minute’s time so many addition combinations should be recognized with a certain degree of accuracy, or referring to another field of work which has been recently investigated, to say that as a result of penmanship instruction, so many letters should be written in a certain time with a certain degree of form and legibility, is to insure not only increased intelligent effort on part of the teacher, but also increased selfmotived attainment on the part of the pupil. MEASURING EFFICIENCY OF INSTRUCTION. 151 Why should not our school system test the value of the qualitative and quantitative standards that have been developed as a result of recent investigations? If Ayres, Thorndike, Wilson, Freeman and Starch have worked out certain standards in penmanship, Hillegas and Courtis, standards in English composition, and Buckingham a scale of measurement in spelling, why should not the work receive cordial acceptance by our supervisory staff? To the extent that these results are valid we should make use of them; to the extent that they are defective we should reject them on the basis of carefully scrutinized classroom practice.
In short, we have reached a stage in educational practice where there is a definite realization of the need of defining standards of attainment in each school subject, and also the degree of proficiency to be attained at any stage of the effort. For example, it is recognized that we should know not only the amount of arithmetic or penmanship a pupil should be master of at the close of an eight year course, but also the amount and quality of his attainments at any given year during the course. Effective instruction is partially dependent upon the establishment and use of definite standards of attainment which will enable us to determine the amount of change our instruction has effected. The establishment of standards such as are contemplated, involves due consideration of the capacity of the pupil and also the demands of the life into which he will probably go. While the study of school conditions will tend to fix certain maximum standards to be attained in such subjects as the “three R’s,” due regard for each individual’s native capacity and his prospective vocational life will determine the degree of proficiency that it may be desirable for him to attempt to attain. Moreover, such investigation as well as the application of the results is fundamentally the work of the administrators of our city schools, rather than the work of university professors or postgraduate students remote from contact with the teaching situation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
For general survey of situation, see Twelfth Herbartian Year Book, I, Chicago University Press; article by Professor Bobbitt. Bulletin No. 116, The Measurement of Educational Processes and Products, by Dr L. P. Ayres, Division of Education of the Russell Sage Foundation, New York City. Scientific Management in Education, by Dr J. M. Rice, New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge. For point of view concerning need of application of standards of physique, see 152 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Pedagogical Anthropology, by Maria Montessori. New York: Stokes & Co. Outline of Individual Study, by George E.. Partridge. New York: Sturgis & Walton. Bibliography on Educational Hygiene and Physical Education, by Wood and Reesor. New York: Teachers College. For Binet Scale, see Manual of Mental and Physical Tests, G. M. Whipple. Baltimore: Warwick & York. For criticism of scale, see Bulletin No. 107, by Ayres, Russell Sage Foundation. For results of application of scale, see The Psychological Clinic, Vols. V, VI, and VII. For discussion of standardization in various school subjects, see Bulletin 1913, No. 13, issued by U. S. Bureau of Education, Repor: on Standards and Tests for Measuring the Efficiency of Schools or Systems of Schools, by G. D. Strayer, Chairman. Educational Administration, IV, by Strayer and Thorndike, N. Y., Macmillian. Contains summary of work in penmanship, arithmetic and English composition by Thorndike, Stone and Hillegas. Reports of McMurry and Courtis issued by the Committee of School Inquiry and reprinted by the World Book Co., Yonkers, New York. Bulletin No. 2 entitled “Second Annual Accounting,” by Professor Courtis, issued by the Department of Cooperative Research, 82 Elliot St., Detroit, Michigan. Also address by Professor Courtis entitled “Better Teaching in Arithmetic.” The same department also publishes standard tests in English composition. Measurement of Hand-Writing, by Daniel Starch, Journal of Educational Psychology, Oct., 1913. For Ayres’ Scale of Penmanship, see Bulletin No. 113, issued by the Russell Sage Foundation. Spelling Ability, by Buckingham. Teachers College, New York. For Ayres’ investigation dealing with vocabulary used in average correspondence, see Bulletin E, No. 126, issued by the Russell Sage Foundation.
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.