A Case of Non-Conformability
- Author:
Arthur Phillips
- Role:
Clinic Teacher
The Psychological Clinic, University of Pennsylvania
Howard, age eight years and six months, was brought to the Psychological Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania on October 10, 1929, by his mother because of inattentiveness in school and failure to make promotion. He was referred by the Principal of a suburban school in the environs of Philadelphia. He was examined in Dr Witmer’s Clinic. The diagnosis is normal mentality. He is a case of simple retardation, infantilism and lack of emotional control over attention. The prognosis is favorable. The recommendation is diagnostic teaching, proper treatment of his eye defect and glandular treatment for symptoms of dyspituitarism.
Howard is the oldest of two boys, both of whom have been examined in this Clinic. The family is of modal American type. There is nothing significant in the medical history of the father or mother. The mother, however, is of a nervous disposition and at present is under the care of the family physician for nervous indigestion. Howard had a normal birth. He walked at fourteen months but fell readily and frequently held his breath. He was diagnosed as a case of rickets. With a change of diet, his general health improved and has been good since that time. He talked at eighteen months but he was tongue tied. He had an operation for this defect and also had his tonsils removed. His eyes have been refracted and glasses prescribed. Despite the heavy lens glasses he wears, he has a myopic attitude toward his surroundings.
He entered first grade at the age of six and is now repeating the second grade in a slow moving section. The Social Service Department of the Clinic sent a visitor to the school. The report shows that Howard ranked C in reading, music and drawing, D in arithmetic. He had been tried last year under two teachers without success. The Principal reported that Howard is not impressed with authority and suggested that the boy showed lack of proper rest and proper food. Sometimes he brought a half of a loaf of bread to school. Often he appeared at school dirty, especially about the ears. In the school he is in a class younger than himself. This suits Howard perfectly as he likes to associate with younger children. He disobeys the directions of the teacher. In spelling when given a word to write down he writes whatever comes into his mind instead of attempting to spell the word. At the blackboard he shows the same disrespect for authority. Instead of following directions, he scrawls all over the board. The Social Service Department visitor observed Howard in the school room. His conduct was non-conformed. When told to sit down after a failure in reading, he slouched in his seat with his back toward the desk and looked at the back of his book. When the class was being prepared for dismissal and all were seated properly, Howard was attracting the attention of a small girl behind him by spinning his pencil on the floor. He read a list of words the teacher had placed on the board correctly and a few minutes later his attention had wandered so that when called upon to read one of the words he was unable to do so. His whole conduct was characterized by a lack of persistence of attention. He scores high in distractability.
In the psychological examination in the Clinic, Howard obtained a high rating for his comprehension-discernment span as tested by the Humpstone digits. His audito-vocal span is seven and his reverse span, five; which locates him in the upper decile at the ten year level. The range of his comprehension and the number of units that he can discriminate at one moment of attention would indicate good intellectual organization?superior to at least ninety per cent ?f boys in the fifth grade of Philadelphia public schools. His Intelligence Quotient is 89. By the norms for boys in the fifth grade of the public school this locates him in a group of ten per cent superior to thirty per cent and inferior to seventy per cent?just a trifle above the lower quintile. The contrast between his rating for comprehension-discernment and his performance level as indicated by his Binet-Simon Intelligence Quotient and his failure in school achievement in the second grade is striking. The problem here is to discover why the ratio between the intellectual quality and the intellectual achievement of this boy is so small.
Howard’s performance on the Witmer Formboard test, first trial, correlated well with his basic Co-di-on. He displayed good motor coordination. In the second trial his performance was not so good. His effort to speed up interfered with his efficiency. On the third trial he exhibited planfulness indicating good observation and the ability to profit by experience. On the Witmer cylinders he failed on the first trial. His approach was exclusively trial and error. He Was exceptionally distractible and completed the test with the excep172 TIIE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC tion of a finer point of analytical discrimination in 180 seconds. However, as he made no attempt to correct his error, he was scored failure. The second performance was qualitatively better and was as good as that of the upper decile of six year olds. Qualitatively he showed good trainability.
Howard entered the Clinic Teaching Department upon recommendation of Dr Witmer. He has received eight hours of individual instruction. On the first day he made an excellent impression, was very eager to learn and alert in taking advantage of instruction. He was not distracted by another teaching case which was being conducted in a large room, but went on with his work. This picture changed. There were days on which he was attentive and worked hard and had no difficulty with his lessons. On other days he was inattentive and did not appear to care whether he knew or whether he did not know. The errors he made were largely errors that he could correct on demand. On these days he needed a firm hand.
His proficiency in reading and arithmetic when he came to the Clinic was a poor 2 B. He could read Bolenius’ second reader, but it was soon discovered that he was reading from memory as the book was the same as he had in school last year. His knowledge’ of phonetics, however, was sufficient for him to work out any difficult words that he met. Under individual instruction he has been advanced to 3 A in arithmetic and reading and has proved to be competent to go on with third grade work.
In his arithmetic work it was noted that frequently he wrote numbers backwards. He would also reverse digits. In writing 81, he would put down 8 and then put one to the left of it. His speech also was infantile. He had difficulty with tli, g and c. This slight mutilation is readily corrected. The instruction given in one lesson proved sufficent. Further practice will soon eliminate this defect in articulation.
In appearance he has been neat and clean, in disposition agreeable. His teacher found him easy to work with. The only thing of which she could complain was his fluctuating attention and his lack of motivation on certain days.
A conference between the mother and the Clinic teacher brought out the fact that at home Howard is a disciplinary problem. It takes two or three commands to enforce obedience of a simple order. The mother confessed that with her he “gets away” with a great deal. When his father is at home he is an entirely different boy. It is our judgment that part of the difficulty with this boy is his lack ?f proper home training. He needs discipline. His conduct in the school room is of one piece with his conduct at home. He is respectful and obedient to his father, disobedient and disrespectful to his mother. This disobedience and disrespect has been transferred to his school teacher. He is inattentive because he has not learned to attend. Another factor in his retardation has been his eyesight. Correction was made only recently. Some survivals of the difficulty this boy had in learning to read and to do arithmetic have been noted and correctional work instituted. A reversal of letters and digits is a case in point.
A third factor is his motivation for school work. This is very variable as already noted. Howard likes to be the center of interest and will resort to very childish means to obtain such a position. To turn this desire for prominence in the right direction and to give him the sense of achievement in something worth while is the next step in his orthogenic development.
The conclusion of the Clinic Teaching Department is that Howard is a boy whose conformation or intellectual quality is much higher than his conformability. He is not producing what reasonably could be expected of him. His proficiency rating is therefore below the median for boys of his age. His motivation for school work will not be improved but will rather suffer as a result of his continuance in the second grade with tasks that constitute no real challenge to his abilities. Neither will his behavior in school improve unless he has real work to do. In discipline he needs firmness coupled with encouragement. His emotionalized inattentiveness may be changed to emotionalized attention when the boy is properly motivated, actively challenged and firmly disciplined. Howard, finally, is an illustration of a familiar situation?that good intellectual quality without the factors of attention, intention and purpose will not carry one as far as a more moderate congenital endowment plus the emotional drive of interest and the will to learn.
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.