The Project Gutenberg eBook of Special talents and defects
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Special talents and defects
Their significance for education
Author: Leta S. Hollingworth
Release date: August 12, 2024 [eBook #74232]
Language: English
Original publication: United States: The Macmillan Company, 1923
Credits: Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS ***
=Experimental Education Series=
EDITED BY M. V. O’SHEA
SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS
[Illustration: The MM Co.]
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS
ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS
Their Significance for Education
BY
LETA S. HOLLINGWORTH, PH.D.
Associate Professor of Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
=New York=
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1923
_All rights reserved_
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COPYRIGHT, 1923
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Set up and electrotyped. Published August, 1923.
=Norwood Press=
J. S. Cushing Co.—Berwick & Smith Co.
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
TO
THE MEMORY OF
RUTH ELINOR STETTER
A GOOD TEACHER
PREFACE
This book has proceeded haltingly, as must be evident in many places,
for it attempts to explore and describe a field that is not well
illuminated. The actual examination of those mental functions which are
relatively dissociated from general intelligence has not been carried
far by experimentalists. However, the problems have been sufficiently
formulated, and enough evidence has been secured, to warrant attempts at
gleaning implications for education, even now.
Mine is the comparatively humble task of bringing together in an ordered
presentation the works of original investigators, in such a way that
they will be available for application. The appeal of the data is above
all to educators, but also, of course, to those who deal in any office
with human beings.
The chief difficulty in organizing the subject has been to delimit it,
as regards the psychology of the elementary school subjects on the one
hand, and mental measurement on the other. It is not the purpose to
cover either of these fields in the present volume. Yet so closely are
they related to the study of special aptitudes in school children that
it will be scarcely possible to obtain the very clearest view of what is
here written without additional knowledge of these matters.
It will be observed, also, that there has been no attempt here to teach
introductory psychology. It is assumed that readers of this volume will
be acquainted with the vocabulary of elementary psychology. The time has
definitely passed when it was either feasible or desirable to present
all topics in a single volume. Those who would learn what modern
educational psychology has to teach now expect, first of all, to equip
themselves by study of a general introductory text.
The lists of references are selected, not complete. To present complete
bibliographies of all works bearing immediately or remotely upon every
topic treated would cumber the volume inexcusably. References have been
selected for these lists because they are historically indispensable,
because they contain information of fundamental importance, or because
they summarize much previous work. I believe that the selection is such
that from the books and articles listed it will be possible for the
student who wishes to do so, to construct the complete bibliography and
history of each topic, up to the present time.
The hundreds of teachers who have sat in the lecture room of Professor
E. L. Thorndike will see how many guiding suggestions for this volume
have come from that source. Professor W. A. McCall has given counsel on
certain chapters. Many investigators and publishers have extended
courtesies, which are acknowledged through the references, and to which
attention is here gratefully directed. I am indebted to Dr. John S.
Richards, Medical Superintendent of The Children’s Hospital, Randall’s
Island, New York, and to Mr. L. L. Kolburne, student at Teachers
College, for assistance in securing illustrative material for Chapter
VII. Finally, I have enjoyed the advantage of editorial supervision by
Professor M. V. O’Shea.
My chief hope for the volume is that it may contribute toward the
welfare of school children compelled to attend upon prescribed
education, without due regard for their idiosyncrasies of original
endowment.
LETA S. HOLLINGWORTH
TEACHERS COLLEGE
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
May, 1923
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE vii
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION xvii
CHAPTER
I. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION 1
Speculation Concerning the Nature of Ability. Results of
Quantitative Investigation.
II. THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CAPACITIES 11
The Coefficient of Correlation. General Intelligence
_vs._ Special Aptitudes. Correlation of Abilities in
Various Groups. Studies of Disorganizing Minds. Is
Intellect Inherited as a Unit? Can an Intellect Be
Trained as a Unit? The Hierarchy of Abilities. Present
Status of the Problem. Measurement of General
Intelligence: The IQ. Measurement of Special Ability. The
Psychographic Picture of Individuality. At What Age Is
Mental Endowment Evident? The Frequency of Marked Special
Talents and Defects. Possible Origin of the Dissociation
of Certain Capacities.
III. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEURAL BASIS 49
The Physiological Mechanism of Mental Life. Attempted
Localization of Mental Functions. Theory of Congenital
Lesion or Atrophy Criticized. Regeneration of Function
without Regeneration of Structure in Injured Brains.
Attempts to Establish a Neural Basis for the “Two Factor
Theory” and the “Two Level Theory.” Present Status of the
Problem.
IV. READING 57
Relation between IQ and Capacity for Reading. The
Mechanics of Reading. Comprehension in Reading. Word
Blindness. Psychological Studies of Special Defect in
Reading. Nervous Instability and Special Defect in
Reading. A Four-Year Study of a Non-Reader. Summary of
Studies of Non-Readers. Cases of Special Ability in
Reading. The Significance of Literacy.
V. SPELLING 98
Coherence among Linguistic Functions. Analysis of
Learning to Spell. Psychological Examination of Poor
Spellers. Can Special Defect in Spelling Be Overcome?
Does Reading Teach Spelling? Illustrative Cases.
VI. ARITHMETIC 114
Relation between IQ and Capacity for Arithmetic.
Distinction between Arithmetic and Mathematics. The
Psychology of Arithmetical Calculation. The Organization
of Arithmetical Abilities. Psychological Studies of
Special Deficiency in Arithmetic. Methods of Detecting
Wrong or Incomplete Habits. Nervous Instability and
Special Deficiency in Arithmetic. Arithmetical Prodigies.
Arithmetical Ability of Two Children of IQ 184 and IQ 187
(Stanford-Binet). The Inheritance of Arithmetical
Abilities. Implications for Education.
VII. DRAWING 141
The Various Kinds of Drawing. Ramifications of Drawing
through the Curriculum. Psychological Analysis of Talent
in Drawing. Relation between Aptitude in Drawing and
General Intelligence. The Color-Blind. Illustrative
Cases. Inheritance of Talent in Drawing. General Summary.
VIII. MUSIC 164
What Is Music? The Various Kinds of Music. The Analysis
of Musical Talent. Relation among Various Elements of
Musical Talent. Relation between Musical Talent and
General Intelligence. Absolute Pitch. Tone Deafness.
Range of Individual Differences. Can Musical Capacity Be
Increased by Education? The Inheritance of Musical
Talent. Psychographic Study of Individuals. Capacity to
Appreciate Music.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS 183
Special Functions Which Have Not Been Long Studied.
Left-Handedness. Mirror Writing. Mechanical Ability.
Ability to Lead and Handle People.
X. INDIVIDUALITY AND EDUCATION 196
The Values of Individuality. Compulsory Education. The
Importance of General Intelligence for School Progress.
Special Abilities and Disabilities as Determinants of
School Progress. Experimental Attempts to Individualize
Education. The Cost of Fostering Individuality. The
Probable Rewards of Individualizing Education.
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Distribution of ability to discriminate among intervals of
time, the subjects being adults. (From Seashore’s _The
Psychology of Musical Talent_. Reproduced by courtesy of
Silver, Burdett and Company, and of the Columbia
Graphophone Company.) 8
2. Flight of birds, illustrating distribution in ability to
fly. (Schematic.) 9
3. The psychograph of a schoolboy, showing his standing in
various mental functions; illustrating use of the
horizontal line to denote typical performance. (From
Hollingworth’s _Judging Human Character_. Reproduced by
courtesy of D. Appleton and Company.) 39
4. The psychographs of three schoolgirls, showing their
standings in various mental functions, measured to
determine mathematical ability; illustrating use of the
vertical line to denote typical performance. (From
_Tests of Mathematical Ability and Their Prognostic
Value_. Reproduced by courtesy of Agnes L. Rogers.) 40
5. The psychograph of a schoolboy, showing his standing in
various mental functions; illustrating use of the circle
as a diagram, the median circumference denoting the
typical performance of his age 41
6. Showing how X improved as measured by Trabue’s “Language
Scale A,” from Feb., 1918, to Dec., 1921 77–81
7. Showing X’s improvement in silent reading, from April 15,
1921, to Dec. 2, 1921, as measured by Thorndike-McCall
“Reading Scale,” Form I 82–83
8. Showing X’s ability to get meaning from printed words, in
May, 1922, as tested by Haggerty’s “Sigma 1,” for grades
1 to 3 84
9. Showing an account written by X of his week’s reading 86
10. Composition written at school by X in December, 1920,
showing deficiencies in spelling 107
11. Letter written by X showing how he could spell by use of
dictionary 108
12. Showing efforts to spell of a 14-year-old schoolboy, of IQ
93, after eight years of school instruction.
Illustrating extreme dissociation of spelling ability
from general intelligence 110
13. Showing spelling of a 12-year-old girl, of IQ 59, after
six years of instruction. Illustrating extreme
dissociation of spelling ability from general
intelligence 111
14. Showing spelling of a child 9 years 10 months old, with IQ
143, after three years of instruction. Illustrating
dissociation of spelling ability from general
intelligence 112
15. Showing D’s calculations on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 10 years 11 months, five minutes being
allowed for the performance 132
16. Showing D’s calculations on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 10 years 11 months, three minutes being
allowed for the performance 133
17. Showing R’s calculations on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 7 years 6 months, five minutes being allowed
for the performance 135
18. Showing R’s calculations on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 7 years 6 months, three minutes being allowed
for the performance 136
19. Showing the psychograph of a stupid child, who has a
special ability in representative drawing. (From
Manuel’s _A Study of Talent in Drawing_. Reproduced by
courtesy of The Public School Publishing Company.) 155
20. Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy,
of IQ near 70 156
21. Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy,
of IQ near 70 157
22. Showing the special ability to cut silhouettes, of a
feeble-minded man, inmate of an institution for mental
defectives 159
23. Charlie Chaplin pursuing a gentleman, and pursued by a
policeman. Showing the special ability to draw, of a
feeble-minded man, in an institution for mental
defectives 160
24. Showing attempts by two distinguished university
professors to cut silhouettes of an elephant 161
25. Psychograph of G, showing special ability in music and
drawing combined with mediocre intelligence 177
26. Psychograph of M, showing special defect in music combined
with very superior general intelligence 179
27. Showing mirror writing by public school pupils. (From
Beeley’s _An Experimental Study of Left-Handedness_.
Reproduced by courtesy of the University of Chicago
Press.) 189
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
When the writer of this introductory note began teaching, it was
popularly believed that a pupil who showed special excellence in
intellectual work or in some particular study owed his superiority to a
faithful and energetic will which held him to his tasks until he had
mastered them thoroughly. It was generally believed, also, that marked
deficiency in school work as a whole or in a special subject was due
principally to a lethargic or indifferent will which could not resist
distractions and temptations to self-indulgence. In those days, pupils
were upbraided and even physically chastised if they failed to prepare
the lessons which were prescribed for them in any study. The writer has
often seen pupils whipped because they failed in their spelling,
arithmetic, reading, history, or grammar. When punishment was
administered in the school it was frequently repeated in the home, since
parents quite generally entertained the view that failure to perform
intellectual tasks satisfactorily was due to negligence or laziness, and
it was thought that the best way to correct such delinquency was to
arouse the will, usually by means of dermal stimulation. In his early
experience as a teacher, the writer never heard, either in training
classes or in teachers’ institutes, that pupils possessed special
talents or defects which were certain to be manifested in their school
work because they were established by native endowment which could not
be modified to any large extent by rewards or penalties.
But we are gradually abandoning the view that either brightness or
dullness in general or in special directions is due primarily to
volitional control or the absence of it. During the last few years,
experimental studies have impressed the principle that individuals
differ in their inheritance of special capacities. Dr. Hollingworth
shows in this volume how far we have gone in the detection of special
talents and defects, with particular regard to the work of the school.
She shows in preliminary discussion what notions people have entertained
regarding the nature of ability, and then she discusses methods of
measuring ability, alike of a general and of a special sort. She
discusses the bases for differences among individuals in ability in
respect to various intellectual traits or functions. Then she presents
in detail what is known to-day regarding special talents and defects as
revealed in the more important subjects taught in the schools.
We believe in these times that the school should to the fullest extent
provide opportunities for each pupil to develop his talents as
completely and as rapidly as possible. It is still required in most
public schools, though, that pupils in any group should be kept quite
close together in their educational progress, even when they show marked
differences in ability in particular subjects or in the entire work of
the school. But the pressure is becoming constantly greater to arrange
school programs so that pupils may go forward as rapidly as their
abilities, either general or special, will enable them to do, while
those who are deficient may receive help according to their needs. There
are already a number of experimental schools and school systems in which
the principle of individual differences in ability is recognized and
applied to a greater or less extent. One may safely predict that we
shall find a way in time so that the principle may be recognized and
applied in all public schools.
Dr. Hollingworth’s book lays a sound foundation for the differentiation
of pupils in a school or classroom according to special abilities or
deficiencies. It can be read by teachers who have not had extensive
study of educational psychology or statistical methods of investigating
such problems as are treated in this volume. The book is written in a
graceful style, and technical matters are discussed in an unusually
clear, simple, and attractive way. It may be confidently asserted that
any teacher who has charge of thirty or forty pupils—or a smaller or
larger number—will be helped to understand individual traits of
excellence or deficiency if she will read what Dr. Hollingworth has
presented in this volume. It may be safely stated, also, that a teacher
will be more sympathetic toward pupils who experience difficulty in
mastering special subjects of study if she will become familiar with the
facts and conclusions which this book contains.
M. V. O’SHEA
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
May, 1923
SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
I. SPECULATION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF ABILITY
Since reflective men began to record their speculations, theories have
been expressed concerning the nature and relationships of mental
functions. Plato in _The Republic_ contemplated the importance of
knowledge in this field. “Come now and we will ask you a question: when
you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean
to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with
difficulty; a little learning will lead the one to discover a great
deal; whereas the other, after much study and application, no sooner
learns than he forgets; or, again, did you mean that the one has a body
which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a
hindrance to him? Would not these be the sort of differences which would
distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?”
In _The Republic_ the use of mental tests to discover the caliber of the
mind is foretold. “We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make
them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be
deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected,
and he who fails in the trial is to be rejected. That will be the way?”
Aside from the speculations of scholars, folk notions as expressed in
proverbs are interesting, especially as showing what men wish were true
concerning human talents and defects. Many of these proverbs embody the
idea of a compensatory distribution of abilities: if I am weak in one
respect, I am sure to be strong in another; if I am a failure now, I
shall probably be a success later on. “Every dog has his day.” “Homely
in the cradle, handsome at the table.” “Slow but sure.” “Easy come, easy
go.” This doctrine of compensation satisfies certain cravings of human
nature, and is therefore likely to be held wherever people have not
given impartial attention to the results of experimental investigation.
Folk-wisdom has also seen men under mental types. According to the
theory of types, the human species is divided into separate categories,
with respect to mental constitution. There would thus be the musical and
the unmusical, the quick and the slow, the imaginative and the
unimaginative, the eye-minded and the ear-minded, and so forth. The
observable complexities of behavior have further led to the description
of a given person by a combination of type-terms, as, for example,
“quick-musical-imaginative,” or “mathematical-accurate-unimaginative.”
Persons thus classified by types, are thought to be of “different
kinds,” “equal” but “unlike.” Two persons are thus compared as an apple
is compared to an orange. Both fruits are “equal,” but of “different
types.” People, according to this conception of human nature, are not
thought of as differing from each other simply in amount, as an apple is
compared with a larger, a smaller, or a sweeter apple. Comparison in
terms of amount is disagreeable in some respects, so that uncontrolled
speculation would surely tend to favor the theory of distinct types.
Type-terms have also been invented for temperament,—sanguine, choleric,
melancholic, phlegmatic. The idea underlying this classification is that
everyone belongs to one or another of these distinct temperamental
types, and, furthermore, that there is a relationship among types which
warrants fixed hyphenated categories.
The mental traits or “faculties” thus classified and hyphenated are
conceived as entities, having each its distinct existence in the
individual mind, and being susceptible to general training and
strengthening, by prescribed exercises. Thus it has been believed that
“the observation” may be developed by exercises with particular
materials, so that all materials whatsoever will be observed equally or
approximately as well.
Speculation has been much occupied, as the history of human thought
shows, with the problem of the origin of individual endowment. Many
different possible explanations were proposed, before the day of
quantitative measurement in psychology. It has been surmised that mental
endowment is the result of prenatal influences, the wishes and
environment of the mother, during the period of gestation; or that it is
the result of education; or that it arises from the physical accidents
met with by the organism; or that it may be inherited from ancestors, as
physical traits rather obviously are. On the whole, speculation has
favored the notion that mental endowment originates in the environment.
The idea that ability is hereditary, determined for each by the
conditions of ancestry, is repugnant. Man prefers to consider that he
can himself determine what he will do and be. This doctrine will not be
tenable if it is admitted that talents and deficiencies are determined
in the germ-plasm, from which the organism springs; that man can only
use, not choose, his mental endowment.
II. RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE INVESTIGATION
Many of the cherished hopes and desires of mankind concerning itself are
in some part violated by the teachings of scientific psychology.
Experimental psychology is not yet half a century old, dating its
beginning as a technical science from the founding of Wundt’s laboratory
at Leipzig, in 1879. Therefore, it is clear that the study of these
problems by quantitative methods brings us very close to the present
day.
When the problem of measuring mental capacity was first taken into the
laboratory, the modern definition of _a mental function_ began to be
formulated. It became apparent that a mind must be judged by its
product. The measurement of _performance_ is the only approach there is,
or probably ever will be, to the measurement of mind. On this basis it
was found impossible to identify or measure any such function as “the
reason,” “the memory,” “the observation,” “the imagination,” “the will,”
and similar supposed entities. _A mental function_ came to be defined as
“_an actually or possibly observable event in behavior_.” Thus,
memorizing digits, detecting absurdities, and reading English print are
examples of mental functions, in the sense in which the term is used
throughout the chapters of this discussion.
Other terms which are used to refer to performances or “events in
behavior,” are _abilities_ and _capacities_. A prolonged discussion
might be conducted, in an attempt to assign different technical meanings
to these words, and to bring out fine shades of distinction among them.
For instance, it might be claimed that “ability” should be reserved to
signify capacity _plus_ the skill acquired by practice, if any; while
“capacity” should mean the innate aptitude, apart from all training.
However, since capacity in this sense can never be known, but can only
be inferred from the degree of actual performance, under controlled
conditions, it hardly seems necessary to maintain such distinctions for
our purpose. Refinements of nomenclature will, therefore, be avoided,
and the terms _mental function_, _capacity_, and _ability_ will be used
interchangeably, to denote performance which depends on the inborn
integrity and sensitivity of the individual.
By way of clarifying the definition of a mental function as “an actually
or possibly observable event in behavior,” we may quote from Spearman’s
presentation of the distinction between “observation” as a mental
function, and “observation of birds’ nests.” Spearman says: “Suppose,
for instance, that a school boy has surpassed his fellows in the
observation of birds’ nests. His victory has, no doubt, depended in part
on his capacity for the general form of activity known as ‘observation.’
But it has also depended on his being able to apply this form of
activity to the matter of birds’ nests; had the question been of tarts
in the pastry cook’s window, the laurels might well have fallen to
another boy. A further influence must have been exercised by the
accompanying circumstances; to spy out nests as they lie concealed in
the foliage is not the same thing as to make observations concerning
them in the open light of a natural history museum. Again, to discover
nests at leisure is different from doing so under the severe speed
limits prescribed by the risk of an interrupting gamekeeper. The boy’s
rank may even depend largely on the manner of estimating merit. Marks
may be given either for the gross number or for the rarity of the nests
observed; and he who most infallibly notes the obvious construction of
the house-sparrow may not be the best at detecting the elusive hole of
the kingfisher.” One cannot, therefore, identify and measure
“observation.” One can only measure “observing birds’ nests, of all
kinds, at leisure,” or “observing rare birds’ nests, under stress of
pursuit,” and so forth, which are “actual or possible events in
behavior.”
As one may glean further from Spearman’s discourse, it has been shown
that most of the mental functions performed by men are not elementary,
but consist of the coördination of complex factors, capable of analysis.
Reading the English word “cat” from a printed page is, for instance, a
very complex function.
The application of quantitative methods to the study of mental functions
as thus defined, quickly revealed the fact that human beings, sampled at
random, in large numbers, do not fall into distinct types. On the
contrary, they yield one unbroken curve of distribution in the function
measured, clustering around _a single type_ (or mode). In all mental
functions which have been measured, there has been found but one
type—the average human type—from which the individual members of the
species deviate in degree (though not in kind). The majority of
individuals deviate but slightly from this biologically established type
or mode. “The typical” in ability is, indeed, by definition, what the
greatest number of people _can do_. From this performance of the
_average_ or _typical_ person, a few individuals deviate widely in the
direction of superiority, while a corresponding few deviate widely in
the direction of inferiority. No doubt the conspicuousness, because of
their infrequency, of extreme deviates in respect to any given function
(or capacity) has led to the notion of separate types of mankind. Mental
measurement shows clearly that men cluster closely around _one type_ in
mental traits, just as they do in such physical traits as height and
weight. All men can be no more divided into the dull and the bright,
than they can be divided into the tall and the short. The eye can see
that most persons are best described as medium, in height.
This principle of _one type_, with deviations in both directions from
it, in a measured trait, holds throughout organic nature. The study of
it in all its bearings is called the study of individual differences.
When the traits involved are mental, we speak of the psychology of
individual differences. It is one of the marvelous facts about human
beings that of all the millions born, no two are just equal in
possession of a given trait, except by chance; and no two are identical
in their combinations of traits, for the infinite possibilities of
permutation practically exclude identity by chance. These combinations,
which go to make up _personality_, are combinations of _amounts_ of the
same traits. This must be clearly understood. The mental classification
of men under different “kinds” is a myth. All show the same kinds of
functions; but they show all degrees of performance in these functions,
within limits which are extremely wide, with multitudinous possibilities
of combinations of functions, in different _amounts_ of each.
There are, therefore, not types. There is _one type_—the typical or
_most frequently occurring amount_ of performance in a function—from
which there is divergence among the individuals born, in various
degrees. Is it possible to construct a picture of this fact, so that it
may become concrete through visual representation? Psychologists have
given us many such pictures, in the forms of curves platted from their
measurements. We may cite as an example, Seashore’s curve of
distribution for the ability to discriminate among intervals of time,
which is one element in musical sensitivity. Seashore measured a large
number of adults in this respect, with the result that is pictured in
Figure 1.
Where the curve rises to its greatest height, at its peak, there the
greatest number of those measured fall in respect to this function. That
is, therefore, the human type, in sense of time. The typical individual
has that amount of this trait. On each side of the type fall deviating
persons, their frequency decreasing rapidly as the amount of deviation
becomes greater. Very few persons in ten thousand have that amount of
sensitivity to time represented by 95–100; and, on the other hand, very
few are so inferior as to fall at the lowest point measurable on this
scale. _The typical person_ has that amount of the trait represented by
85–75, approximately. Distinct types, such as “sensitive” and
“insensitive,” do not appear, as a result of mathematical distribution.
But a few extreme _deviates from the typical_ appear,—the superior in
sensitivity and the inferior in sensitivity.
[Illustration:
FIG. 1.—Distribution of ability to discriminate among intervals of
time, the subjects being adults. (From Seashore’s _The Psychology of
Musical Talent_. Reproduced by courtesy of Silver, Burdett and
Company, and of The Columbia Graphophone Company.)
]
Occasionally it is possible to illustrate in nature, to the eye of the
man untutored in the derivation of scientific laws, the form of this
distribution. This happens, for example, when a very large flock of
birds rises and passes overhead, during migration. Being tested in
flight, the birds will be seen distributed somewhat as suggested in
Figure 2. Not all are equally swift and enduring, but they deviate from
a single type or mode—the great median mass of birds, which are typical
of this species, in respect to the function of flight.
The same phenomena of distribution appear if a thousand wild horses run
a race, or if a hundred unselected swimmers swim in competition. They
appear whenever non-select organisms of a single species are submitted
to an adequate test or measure of any function of endowment. The curve
approximates that form which mathematicians tell us results when an
infinite number of factors act together in an infinite number of ways.
We have spoken thus far of the distribution of individuals in a single
kind of performance. What does quantitative psychology teach with
respect to the combination of performances in a given personality? Is it
true, as folk-wishes would have it, that abilities are distributed among
us by a law of compensation? Is the slow man’s slowness offset by
accuracy? Does the quick learner lose his learning more readily than the
slow learner? Is he who excels in arithmetic likely to be surpassed at
spelling? The general consideration of these questions, which form the
topics of this volume, will be found in the chapter which follows. It
will be seen that there is no law of compensation in human ability,
however much we may long to find it there.
[Illustration:
FIG. 2.—Flight of birds, illustrating distribution in ability to fly.
(Schematic.)
]
As for the origin of talents and defects, psychology teaches that mental
endowment in human beings is conditioned by ancestry, just as other
traits of organisms are. Mental capacities are inherited through the
germ-plasm. A child is gifted (if he is so) for the same reason that he
is an Eskimo (if he is one)—because some or all of his ancestors carried
those traits in their germ-plasm, and the combination of them in just
that way was possible.
REFERENCES
MEUMANN, E.—_Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die experimentelle
Pädagogik_; Engelmann, Leipzig, 1914.
SEASHORE, C.—_Measures of Musical Talent_; Columbia Graphophone
Company, New York, 1919.
STERN, W.—_Die differentielle Psychologie_; Barth, Leipzig, 1911.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—_Educational Psychology_; 3 vols. Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1913.
CHAPTER II
THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CAPACITIES
I. THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION
The question is: How are mental capacities mutually related, with regard
to amounts of each found in given individuals?
Before verifiable facts can be established in a field of knowledge, it
is necessary to introduce therein methods of enumeration and
measurement. The question above propounded has waited long for answer,
because of the great difficulty of applying mathematics to mental
phenomena. The answer required first that single functions be accurately
scored, and then that a measurement be obtained of the _relationship_
between and among the single functions.
It seems well agreed that the quantitative determination of the
relationship between and among mental characteristics began with Galton,
about 1885. Various scholars have presented discussions of the subject
since then, notably Baerwald in 1896, Spearman in 1904, Stern in 1911,
Meumann in 1913, and Thorndike in 1913, each of whom summarized the
findings up to the time of writing, with original interpretations.
The methods of quantitative measurement used to study the constitution
of mental abilities, or functions, as related to each other, are chiefly
those of correlation—simple correlation, multiple correlation, and
partial correlation.
It is not within the scope of the present volume to give consideration
to these methods as such. Highly technical instruction in the theory and
practice of measurement is necessary for complete understanding of them.
The results may be comprehended for our purposes, without complete
knowledge of the methods. Much of the evidence we now have in the matter
of relationships among mental functions has been obtained by the method
of simple correlation. A brief exposition of how a relationship is
established between two variable functions within a group, by simple
correlation, will suffice to give a general understanding of the term
_coefficient of correlation_, which is used here, and which frequently
appears in modern texts of educational psychology. The interpretation of
coefficients of correlation should not, however, be undertaken
independently without full knowledge, as competent interpretation for
practical purposes must take into account all the conditions under which
they have been derived.
Below are listed fourteen school children, each of whom has been
measured in each of two mental functions: (1) mental age, determined by
a standard scale for measuring general intelligence (Stanford-Binet),
and (2) spelling ability, as measured by a standard spelling scale
(Ayres’ scale). These children were selected for study, because they
appeared to be characterized by special discrepancy between the two
functions.
We wish now to know whether and to what extent the child who falls high
in the distribution of mental ages also falls high in the distribution
of spelling ability. According to the formula which is most useful in
this case,[1] we arrange these pupils in their order of merit for one of
the functions measured, _e.g._ for mental age. We then find the rank for
each, within the group, in the second function, which is here spelling
ability. The difference in rank between the paired functions is then
found for each pupil, and the correlation formula is applied.[2]
TABLE FROM HOLLINGWORTH
Showing rank in each of two mental functions, within a group of fifth
grade children, selected for special disability in spelling. The
coefficient of correlation obtained is .081.
═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════
NAME │ MENTAL AGE │ SPELLING ABILITY
│ YRS. MOS. │ PER CENT CORRECT
│ (STANFORD-BINET) │ LISTS Q AND R (AYRES)
───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼───────────────────────
RL │ 13 7│ 90.1
JP │ 12 5│ 95.2
HA │ 12 2│ 81.7
MG │ 11 6│ 31.7
LK │ 10 10│ 80.2
SSh │ 10 10│ 77.9
SSc │ 10 9│ 81.8
MS │ 10 9│ 34.1
PJ │ 10 4│ 32.6
HL │ 10 1│ 58.9
RH │ 9 8│ 93.1
MU │ 9 8│ 57.0
BN │ 9 6│ 92.1
HR │ 8 3│ 81.8
═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════
If there is in fact perfect correspondence, so that each pupil holds the
same rank on the distribution in both functions, a perfect positive
correlation is obtained, the _coefficient of correlation_ being
expressed as 1.00. If no relationship at all exists between the two
functions measured, so that nothing whatever can be predicted of either
from knowing about the other, the coefficient of correlation will be
0.00[3] If there exists a perfect negative relationship, so that the
person who stands highest in one stands lowest in the other, and so
forth through the series, in a perfect inverse standing of all members,
then a coefficient of correlation expressed by −1.00 is obtained.
In the sample given, the coefficient of correlation obtained is .081,
which not being reliably greater than zero (because of possible error
due to the smallness of the group and other conditions) tells us that
the two functions are in this case related to each other only very
slightly, if at all. The child who stands above the average of the group
in mental age, may or may not stand above the group average in spelling.
With a relationship so far from unity as is expressed by a coefficient
of .081, we may expect to find in this group comparatively intelligent
children who are very poor spellers, and good spellers who stand low in
mental age. Among children taken at random, however, a different
relationship exists between spelling ability and general intelligence,
as represented by mental age. The positive correlation is much higher
among children not selected, as these were, for an observed discrepancy.
At the present time the more elaborate methods of partial correlation
and multiple correlation are being applied to the study of
relationships, where more than two functions are involved. Into the
intricacies of these we shall not enter, except as concerns their
results.
II. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE _vs._ SPECIAL APTITUDES
The original attempts to apply mathematical formulæ to the study of
relationship among mental traits eventuated in divergent hypotheses. In
England, Spearman, with his students and collaborators, interpreted his
researches to mean that there is in mental constitution a “general
factor,” which shows itself in all the performances of a given
individual. This would render relatively predictable the quality of
performance in all functions, from knowledge of performance in one
function. “All branches of intellectual activity have in common one
fundamental function (or group of functions), whereas the remaining or
specific elements of the activity seem in every case to be wholly
different from that in all others.... The function almost entirely
controls the relative position of children at school (after making due
allowance for differences of age), and is nine parts out of ten
responsible for success in such a simple act as Discrimination of
Pitch.... Its relation to the intellectual activity does not appear to
be of any loosely connected or auxiliary character (such as willingness
to make an effort, readiness in adaption to unfamiliar tests, or
dexterity in the fashion of executing them), but rather to be intimately
bound up in the very essence of the process.”
Spearman noted that, though all functions seemed related to this “common
factor,” they were not all equally related in his results; wherefore he
formulated the concept of a hierarchy of relatedness. Discussion as to
the essential nature of the fundamental factor was reserved, but it was
predicted from the correlations made that “general intelligence” could
and would be measured for practical purposes. This interpretation was
based upon the fact that among abilities which yielded to his
measurement, Spearman could find only positive coefficients of
correlation, when the groups were large and the human beings non-select.
In the United States, Thorndike and his collaborators were most struck
by the fact that the coefficients obtained fell short, in many cases far
short, of unity. They laid stress upon the imperfection of the relations
revealed, and were able to show that between some functions, such as
discriminating among the lengths of lines, and others, such as naming
the opposites of words, the correlation dropped in groups investigated
to approximately zero.
As a result of interpretation from their point of view, they wrote as
follows: “One is almost tempted to replace Spearman’s statement by the
equally extravagant one that there is nothing whatever common to all
mental functions, or to any half of them.” They maintained that mental
functions are specialized, and that when excellence in one is correlated
with excellence in another, “this is due chiefly to the fact that the
two involve identical elements in their execution. It is not due to one
and the same ‘faculty,’ which presides over their activities.”
These two divergent interpretations of the same array of data have been
cited, because the controversy involved is of first rate importance for
mental measurement, for the understanding of individuals, and for
education. The controversy now appears to have been one of emphasis. To
recapitulate, Spearman stressed the positive aspect of the coefficients
found, and declared mental traits to be distributed so that status in
one is predictable from status in another. Thorndike emphasized the
reduction from unity of the coefficients, and formulated the hypothesis
that there is no absolutely predictable coherence among mental
functions, that each is special to itself within an individual. No
laboratory scientist has ever found reason for adding a third side to
the controversy, by advocating seriously that mental traits are
compensatory in relation to each other. Negative coefficients of
correlation have never been found, except occasionally by chance or
selection.[4] All know that the correlations among amounts of traits are
positive. It is the reduction from unity which has caused the
disagreements of interpretation.
During the twenty years which have elapsed since the first
interpretations were set forth there have been modifications of each
hypothesis, in the direction of mutual reconciliation. This has come
about through extended researches by many inquirers, furnishing
additional data.
III. CORRELATION OF ABILITIES IN VARIOUS GROUPS
Some of the significant studies of correlation made since Spearman and
Thorndike proposed their conflicting interpretations, have been cited in
the appended list of references. Two samples of the results of these
studies are herewith presented. The first is from Simpson’s study of
mental tests given to two groups of adults, chosen respectively from the
opposite extremes of competency, as shown by social-economic success.
One group was composed of successful professional educators. The other
was composed of unskilled laborers and unemployed men. The table on page
18 shows how the traits measured cohere among these individuals. The
coefficients are positive, in the majority of cases highly so.
The second sample is from Weglein’s study of standing in school
subjects, among high school pupils.
Bearing in mind that, if no mutual relationship exists among the
abilities considered, coefficients of correlation will approach zero, it
is clear that there is decided positive, but not perfect,
correspondence. The wider the range of competence tested, the greater
the correspondence found. High school pupils (from among whom those
having very little ability for the subject matter taught have already
been eliminated) show smaller coefficients than do the persons measured
by Simpson. If all adolescents in existence were obliged to study the
subjects listed by Weglein, and if the resulting grades were then
correlated, the coefficients would be notably higher than those
recorded.
TABLE FROM SIMPSON
PEARSON COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION (CORRECTED FOR ATTENUATION)
Correlations of abilities in two selected groups, and in the two treated
as one group. In the case of each test the heavy-face figure given first
is for the Good and Poor together, divergences being measured from the
median of the 37 individuals. The second figure is for the Good group,
divergences being measured from its median. The third figure is for the
Poor group.
═══════════╤══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
│EBBINGHAUS HARD MEMORY EASY A MEMORY ADDING
│ TEST OPPOSITES OF OPPOSITES TEST OF
│ WORDS PASSAGES
───────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ =92= =92= =75= =68= =91= =71=
Ebbinghaus │ 66 67 48 03 42 55
test │
│ 90 78 90 76 61 63
│
│ =92= =92= =81= =76= =86= =74=
Hard │ 66 75 93 15 45 79
Opposites │
│ 90 77 78 65 64 51
│
│ =92= =92= =68= =70= =89= =56=
Memory of │ 67 75 52 −13 41 20
Words │
│ 78 77 70 88 100 23
│
│ =75= =81= =68= =71= =69= =70=
Easy │ 48 93 52 05 05 45
Opposites │
│ 90 78 70 51 58 50
│
│ =68= =76= =70= =71= =60= =67=
A Test │ 03 15 −13 05 14 59
│ 76 65 88 51 48 39
│
│ =91= =86= =89= =69= =60= =66=
Memory of │ 42 45 41 05 14 20
Passages │
│ 61 64 100 58 48 15
│
│ =71= =74= =56= =70= =67= =66=
Adding │ 55 79 20 45 59 20
│ 63 51 23 50 39 15
│
│ =54= =64= =67= =54= =94= =60= =44=
Geometrical│ 00 07 06 38 68 −30 13
Forms │
│ 36 33 56 34 91 41 19
│
│ =72= =72= =82= =43= =44= =63= =46=
Learning │ 22 14 53 −04 −16 −26 12
Pairs │
│ 73 66 44 64 72 22 51
│
│ =50= =70= =51= =50= =84= =38= =77=
Completing │ 67 100 100 100 04 35 86
Words │
│ 71 49 43 49 88 13 70
│
│ =26= =25= =06= =53= =27= =12= =27=
Drawing │ −17 10 −23 00 −10 −24 −49
Lengths │
│ 27 13 −09 43 08 09 05
│
│ =52= =55= =59= =56= =57= =58= =17=
Estimating │ 28 −08 44 −02 −11 −36 04
Lengths │
│ 01 −02 16 16 13 35 −40
───────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
═══════════╤══════════════════════════════════════════════════
│GEOMETRICAL LEARNING COMPLETING DRAWING ESTIMATING
│ FORMS PAIRS WORDS LENGTHS LENGTHS
│
───────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ =54= =72= =50= =26= =52=
Ebbinghaus │ 00 22 67 −17 28
test │
│ 36 73 71 27 01
│
│ =64= =72= =70= =25= =55=
Hard │ 07 14 100 10 −08
Opposites │
│ 33 66 49 13 −02
│
│ =67= =82= =51= =06= =59=
Memory of │ 06 53 100 −23 44
Words │
│ 56 44 43 −09 16
│
│ =54= =43= =50= =53= =56=
Easy │ 38 −04 100 00 −02
Opposites │
│ 34 64 49 43 16
│
│ =94= =44= =84= =27= =57=
A Test │ 68 −16 04 −10 −11
│ 91 72 88 08 13
│
│ =60= =63= =38= =12= =58=
Memory of │ −30 −26 35 −24 −36
Passages │
│ 41 22 13 09 35
│
│ =44= =46= =77= =27= =17=
Adding │ 13 12 86 −49 04
│ 19 51 70 05 −40
│
│ =40= =61= =30= =35=
Geometrical│ −23 00 40 −14
Forms │
│ 39 32 14 07
│
│ =40= =34= =04= =54=
Learning │ −23 74 −38 61
Pairs │
│ 39 34 20 36
│
│ =61= =34= =17= =22=
Completing │ 00 74 −04 06
Words │
│ 32 34 00 −28
│
│ =30= =04= =17= =55=
Drawing │ 40 −38 −04 −41
Lengths │
│ 14 20 00 34
│
│ =35= =54= =22= =55=
Estimating │ −14 61 06 −41
Lengths │
│ 07 36 −28 34
───────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────
TABLE FROM WEGLEIN
│ │
Coefficients of correlation between school subjects (teachers’ marks)
in
the case of 59 high school pupils.
│ │
ACADEMIC GROUP
╒════════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╕
│ │ ENG. I │ ALG. I │ HIST. I │ LATIN I │ DRAWING │
├────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│English I │ │ .22│ .20│ .19│ .37│
│Algebra I │ .22│ │ .42│ .65│ .09│
│History I │ .20│ .42│ │ .57│ .13│
│Latin I │ .19│ .65│ .57│ │ −.22│
│Drawing │ .37│ .09│ .13│ −.22│ │
╘════════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╛
COMMERCIAL GROUP
╒═══════════════╤═══════╤═══════╤═══════════╤═══════╤═══════╤═══════╕
│ │ENG. I │ BKK. │COM. ARITH.│STENOG.│TYPEWR.│DRAWING│
├───────────────┼───────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┤
│English I │ │ .69│ .52│ .54│ .50│ .15│
│Bookkeeping │ .69│ │ .66│ .48│ .50│ .50│
│Com. Arithmetic│ .52│ .66│ │ .38│ .52│ .53│
│Stenography │ .54│ .48│ .38│ │ .51│ .21│
│Typewriting │ .50│ .50│ .52│ .51│ │ .31│
│Drawing │ .15│ .50│ .53│ .21│ .31│ │
╘═══════════════╧═══════╧═══════╧═══════════╧═══════╧═══════╧═══════╛
These are fair samples of the results of studies in correlation, among
mental functions, in groups of individuals more or less select. Even
physical traits, like height and longevity, have been found to give
slight positive correlation with mental traits. Evidently there is _a
general organic quality_, which shows itself to some extent wherever the
individual is fairly tested or “sampled.”
IV. STUDIES OF DISORGANIZING MINDS
Another series of attempts at the solution of this problem has been made
through observations upon deteriorating minds. The question is, Do
mental functions deteriorate together or separately in dements? When a
person is “losing his mind,” is the impairment general or selective in
its progress?
The study of demented persons had been carried on by a few investigators
in the hope that the decay of capacities might throw light upon their
relationships. The chief obstacle to study from this approach has been
that the investigators have never been able to know the original
mentality of their subjects. They have always been obliged to make
assumptions. It is difficult to see how this factor may be controlled,
short of filing careful mental analyses of great sections of the
population in youth. The chief conditions in which decay of ability is
most probably present, as distinguished from decay of effort and
attitude, are senile dementia, dementia paralytica, and alcoholic
psychosis; and it cannot be known beforehand which persons are destined
to represent these conditions. It cannot be predicted who will live long
enough to become senile, who will contract syphilis, eventuating in
general paresis, or who will be a chronic alcoholic. It is true that
original mental status may be inferred with a moderate amount of
accuracy from school status attained. If the dements studied had all
been high school graduates, for instance, then we could be certain that
the performances shown in the recorded studies really represent
deterioration.
Unfortunately, the subjects of study have been, with rare exceptions,
persons of elementary education and humble social status. They come from
those sections of the education-occupation distributions, where very
limited capacity is found. Therefore, we are rather uncertain as to how
much deterioration from original status has really taken place. So far
as actual figures go, it is not shown that there has been decay of
intellect.
However, assuming that these segregated persons had actually
deteriorated in their ability to perform tasks, let us inquire what the
researches show. Binet and Simon worked with forty adults, classified as
senile dements or as victims of dementia paralytica. They conclude that
“Every dement has an intellectual level below normal,” as measured by
tests of general intelligence. The limitations of dements are,
nevertheless, _qualitatively_ different from those of other incompetents
(children and the feeble-minded); and the reactions of the senile differ
from those with dementia paralytica. Of the victim of dementia
paralytica they say, “He has not tumbled down the ladder of development,
rung by rung. His is a _difficulty of functioning_.” “It is
characteristic in these losses of functioning that the subject knows how
to meet the problem submitted to him; he has the knowledge, but from
time to time the power fails him.” This _inertia_ of comprehension is
_general_, and has the effect of lowering the total level of
performance, though the particular items of failure and success may vary
markedly from occasion to occasion. It is hardly the same thing as
actual decay of a structure. Thus one cannot predict the responses of
these dements, as one can those of other incompetents, like children and
imbeciles, because their errors and failures have a remarkable degree of
inconsistency. “In a general way, one can hardly foresee how such a one
is going to conduct himself, for special failures and successes are at
such variance with the general level.” “General paralytics are hardly
able to perform the hundredth part of what they know.”
Senile dements are different, in that they actually no longer know. The
structure itself has been demolished, not merely has it been paralyzed
as to function. According to the observations of Binet and Simon the
abilities of senile dements as a group are by no means equally impaired.
They cannot remember events nor learn new things, yet they retain the
power of auto-criticism, many complaining that they no longer “know
anything.” They may be degraded to the level of early childhood in
ability to repeat digits, yet retain use of the vocabulary of a superior
adult.
These observations are extremely suggestive, but they lack statistical
validity, being limited to narrative descriptions. It is true that one
who has worked much among dements in a practical way, recognizes the
pictures drawn by Binet, of persons decayed in some functions, yet
“surprisingly preserved” in others. Proof of the extent to which this
characteristically happens would necessarily be derived from tests of
large numbers of cases, treated mathematically, and not by the method of
narrative.
Hart and Spearman more recently presented a study of sixty-one insane
persons,[5] asking the question, “Does an insane person present, as a
rule, much greater inequality of performance than a sane one?”
Recognizing the error from not knowing the original status of the
presumably deteriorated minds, in all the various functions to be
tested, the attempt was made to allow for this by testing in the same
way thirty-three sane persons, selected presumably to represent what the
insane were like before they became alienated. Nineteen mental functions
were thus tested, and the results were then treated by the method of
correlation, the assumption being that if there were greater inequality
among mental functions in the insane (that is to say, among deteriorated
minds) than among the sane, this would show itself in diminished
coefficients of correlation.
It is interesting to consult the original tables of data, which,
however, will not be presented here. The conclusion reached is that “The
inequality between the powers of the same person for different kinds of
performances does not appear to be appreciably greater in insanity than
in health, nor in one of the forms of insanity tested than in another.
Thus, in the main, the mental injury appears to be of a perfectly
diffuse character, or to constitute a lowering of the whole intellectual
level.... Over and above this general impairment, elaborate methods can
also detect certain damages characteristic of particular maladies. These
are very narrow and specific in kind, but probably may be
correspondingly grave in intensity.”
Spearman thus again maintains his “two factor” theory of endowment—the
“general factor” conditioning performance as a whole, and “specific
factors” conditioning certain mental functions to a much greater extent
than others. To determine what these special mental functions are,
Spearman leaves to further research.
This careful investigation is nevertheless imperfect for the purpose,
which is to learn whether there is selective enfeeblement of abilities.
It is really impossible to know that deterioration _has_ occurred,
unless there have been measurements made beforehand. Sane persons,
selected from the same social stratum, are not entirely reliable as a
control, because those who are of the psychic constitution destined for
insanity undoubtedly differ originally from those who remain sane, and
this difference may involve a difference in mental abilities, either of
amount or of relationship. The degree of deterioration calculated by
Hart and Spearman may be merely a matter of original differences in
central tendency between the two groups.
Here, too, it should be noted that Hart and Spearman mixed a variety of
psychoses (even including an imbecile not deteriorated so far as known),
both those that do involve actual decay of ability, and those that
involve only disturbances of general auxiliary functions, like attitude
and effort. Just what would be the effect of this mixing upon the
correlations could be told only if we knew how each form of disorder
characteristically affects the relationship among mental functions,
which is unknown. If mental functions are differently selected for
impairment in the different forms of psychosis, then we should expect
diminished coefficients of correlation among the insane, because mixing
the psychoses would produce inconsistency of rank within the group. If,
however, certain functions were deteriorated in all or nearly all of the
insane, others remaining intact, or relatively so, this selective
enfeeblement would not appear in correlation coefficients. Facts like
those observed by Binet and Simon might be obscured by the methods of
Hart and Spearman.
Moore, working subsequent to Hart and Spearman, limited his
investigation to those cases believed by psychiatrists to be
characterized by real loss of abilities, the dementias: dementia
paralytica, senile dementia, and alcoholic dementia. He tested thirty
dements, laborers and tradesmen, and, as controls, six young men from
the same occupational group, in the following mental functions: (1)
perceiving eight each (in a series) of real objects, pictures of
objects, printed words, and spoken words, referring to real objects of
ordinary everyday experience; (2) repeating after one exposure of the
series as much of it as could be remembered without regard to sequence;
(3) after a minute of mental work at calculation, repeating again what
could then be remembered of the series. Moore then correlated
performance within the group in each of these functions with that in
each of the others. The coefficients thus resulting are interpreted as
follows: “The average of all correlations of perception with the various
memories is .538.... That the average correlation for memory and
perception is as high as .538 shows that there must be a common factor
present. But its presence does not exclude the existence of special
forms of mental ability.” Moore also correlated perceiving with
remembering in the functions separately, and remembering immediately
with remembering after a minute of distraction. These coefficients are
positive, and mostly high, but not perfect.
The work of Moore does not seem to go beyond knowledge already obtained
from study of sane persons. The coefficients do not prove that the
amounts of deterioration in the functions had been equal; or even that
deterioration had taken place. Moore’s six sane subjects were too few to
constitute a control, and are not referred to as such in treating
results. Instead, Moore refers the reader to the records of subjects in
preceding monographs to show that “the low values of these subjects (the
insane) are distinctly pathological.” This comparison is seen to be
invalid, for the subjects referred to as establishing the criterion of
intactness are professors and university students, almost certainly much
higher in ability by original nature than the insane group.
Assuming, nevertheless, here also that the subjects really had
deteriorated, the method of correlation must again be brought under
criticism as ill adapted to answer questions concerning _selective_
enfeeblement. A group of senile dements, all high school graduates,
might, for instance, be not at all deteriorated from their original
status in the mechanics of reading, but greatly deteriorated in the
ability to tell what has been read. Yet correlation might result in a
positive coefficient as high as that found among typical high school
graduates, if the decay in repeating matter took place in proportion to
the degree of ability originally present in each individual. There might
be marked selective impairment, which would be hidden in coefficients of
correlation.
The problem of selective enfeeblement must be investigated by computing
_deviation_ in various functions from a known norm or standard in each;
and the person’s original status in that function must be known. For
such investigation senile dements would seem to be the best subjects,
since in them there is natural decay of functions. It is, however,
difficult to find very aged deteriorated persons, whose original status
is known (known, at least, to have been generally high), and who have
not some sensory or motor handicap to complicate performance, such as
deafness, failing vision, or palsy.
The net result, for our purposes, of studies so far made of mental decay
is not very helpful, because (1) the original status of the subjects is
never known, (2) the psychoses have been mixed in experiment, without
preliminary test-knowledge of the characteristics of each, if any, and
(3) the method of correlation, which has been used, is not suited to
show selective enfeeblement of mental functions. Every study made has
suffered from one or more of these hindrances to interpretation. The
information gleaned from them is much the same as that already gleaned
from studies of the undeteriorated, namely, that among people (whether
sane or insane) those who hold a certain rank within a group in one
function tend also to hold a similar rank within that group in other
functions. The question of _selective_ enfeeblement of a function within
a group of the insane remains unanswered. The investigators of the
demented have, however, made a particular contribution in pointing the
way to a new source of light. For the study of mental decay, when
carried on by adequate methods, extremely difficult of attainment, is
sure to throw light on the relationships among mental functions. From it
we shall learn whether some functions remain intact, with impairment of
other functions.
V. IS INTELLECT INHERITED AS A UNIT?
There are still other approaches to the study of the constitution of
intellect. One is through the investigation of heredity. The question is
whether intellect is inherited as a unit, or whether some different
formula is indicated. If intellect is a unit character, subject to but
one determiner in the germ-plasm, then it should act as an “all or none”
capacity in its appearance among offspring of given matings. Children
should be separable into distinct groups, each having a different median
with respect to intellect, _i.e._ those who have intellect and those who
lack it.
The methods of mental measurement teach us plainly that intellect is not
inherited in this way. Instead of a broken curve, indicating a division
of children into those who inherit and those who fail to inherit a unit
character, we obtain the curve already demonstrated, which is continuous
and symmetrical. There is but one diversified group of children, with
respect to intellect—not distinct groups.
The inheritance of intellect does not, therefore, follow the simple
formula of unit characters, as does the shape of peas, the color of
rabbits’ coats, or eye-color in man. The trait we measure and name as
general intelligence is a complex, resulting from the incidence of a
great number of functions, acting together in a great number of ways,
yet cohering in respect to amounts found in given individuals.
Possibly each of the indefinitely numerous functions, which thus appear
to act together as man’s intellect, may be a unit character, inherited
according to Mendel’s formula. Such a possibility is at present purely
speculative.
The puzzle is that a given individual should “hit,” as it were, at
approximately the same point in the distribution of nearly every
function.
VI. CAN AN INTELLECT BE TRAINED AS A UNIT?
Studies of the learning process also give light upon the organization of
capacities. The question here is as to whether training in one function
spreads equally to all other functions. Is it possible to “train the
mind” as a whole? Will it raise the proficiency of all performances
fifty per cent, if a fifty per cent gain is achieved in Latin
composition?
Numerous attempts have been made to determine the extent to which skill
acquired in one performance increases skill in other performances. The
conclusion which emerges from these studies is that _intellect cannot be
trained as a unit_. Transfer of training from one function to other
functions is far from complete. Apparently, there is spread of
improvement from practice in a function only to such other functions as
have elements in common with it. If two performances differ in any way,
there is something in the second that remains _untrained_ by the
practice given to the first. If two performances differ in all respects,
the second seems not to derive any benefit at all from training in the
first.
To a very highly intelligent individual, nearly all situations and
performances tend to have some identical elements, no doubt. To a very
dull person, relatively few situations or demands present identical
elements, for the dull perceive only gross similarities and differences.
Thus, spread of improvement is without doubt greatest for the innately
gifted, and least for the innately inferior minds. In connection with
the present discussion, however, the chief point of interest is that no
mind, of whatever degree of innate integrity and sensitivity, can be
trained as a unit. Each function has elements special to itself, and
some functions are very highly specialized, as regards the amount of
transfer of training from them to others, or from others to them.
The evidence from learning, therefore, substantiates the evidence from
heredity, indicating that intellect is not a unit, but a complex of many
capacities, coinciding mysteriously in amount to a very marked extent in
an individual.
VII. THE HIERARCHY OF ABILITIES
It has been stated that though all, or nearly all, mental functions so
far measured and correlated, yield positive coefficients, all do not
show an equal amount of positive correlation. Certain mental functions,
for example, are shown to yield coefficients of as much as .80, for a
total correlation with others of a series; while some yield coefficients
as low as .10, approaching absence of relationship. To explain these
facts, Spearman formulated the concept of a hierarchy of relatedness to
a “general factor.” Those abilities showing slight correlation with
others in series of tests, were thought of as but loosely related to
“general intelligence,” and as constituting “special abilities.” They
might be displayed by persons inferior in general, or might be lacking
in persons otherwise superior.
Here again, the facts are not in question. It is admitted by all that
functions show different amounts of positive correlation with one
another, and of total correlation with members of a series. Not all
experts agree, however, with Spearman’s theoretical explanation of the
phenomena. Thomson has recently shown, by tossing dice of various
colors, that in this game of chance (in which there is no “general
factor,” but only many independent factors), hierarchical order of
correlation coefficients is almost sure to be obtained, for combinations
resulting from throws. Thomson, therefore, holds that the theory of a
“general factor,” participating in all the separate performances of an
individual, is not proved from the facts about correlation coefficients.
He proposes the following, regarded by him as an alternative: “The mind,
in carrying out any activity such as a mental test, has two levels at
which it can operate. The elements of activity at the lower level are
entirely specific, but those at the higher level are such that they may
come into play in different activities. Any activity is a sample of
these elements. The elements are assumed to be additive like dice, and
each to act on the ‘all or none’ principle, not being in fact further
divisible.”
It is not quite easy to see that this theory, finally proposed by
Thomson, which might be termed the “two level” theory, is very different
from Spearman’s “two factor” theory, nor why the terms “higher” and
“lower” should be introduced. But demonstration of the probability of
obtaining a hierarchy of correlations simply from the tossing together
by chance of independent factors, as with dice, adds new data for
consideration. It might be that non-biological principles of probability
are sufficient to explain the hierarchical order of correlations, among
many tests administered to a given group, just as they are apparently
sufficient to account for the particular form in which ability in any
single test is distributed through the human species.
But if this is so, how account for the _consistency_ with which certain
abilities, like ability to draw, are repeatedly shown to correlate but
slightly, while others, like completing sentences, repeatedly yield high
total correlation? How account for the fact that there is marked
coherence among certain groups of tests, such as “tests dealing with
words only,” and “tests dealing with numbers only,” as contrasted with
the relative lack of coherence among “tests, some dealing with number,
and some with words”? It would seem that these phenomena must be at
bottom _biological_. It cannot, for instance, be demonstrated that
yellow dice and red dice thrown, wherever and by whomever cast, tend
always to correlate high, while green and maroon dice tend always to
correlate low with each other, and with yellow and red dice. Nor can it
be demonstrated that dice colored, let us say, from one end of the
spectrum tend always to correlate high among themselves, but much lower
with the dice colored from the other end of the spectrum, wherever and
by whomever cast.
Furthermore, die-casting will not give a relationship in which throws
resulting in low scores are paired with low scores, and so on, from low
through high, high scores being also paired with high scores, as when
organisms are tried. The correlation among throws of dice arises from _a
different form of relationship_, in which the improbable throws,
resulting in either very high or very low scores, are paired
indifferently,[6] this indifference not being able, however, to produce
zero correlation, because of the infrequency of extreme scores. The
frequently occurring, mediocre scores in both series are, however, very
similar, the most frequently occurring score for both being, indeed, the
same. Since the mediocre scores tend to occur _both frequently and
together_, because of the laws of chance, they produce positive
correlations, differing in amount from series to series (also because of
the laws of chance). But when organisms are tested, as has been
repeatedly demonstrated, the serial relationship between two functions
holds through high and low, and this, also, must be _biological_, and
not explainable by laws of chance.
The demonstrations from die-casting are extremely significant, as
warning us not to depend wholly for our inferences upon the amount of
positive coefficients of correlation, nor the possibility of arranging
them in hierarchical order. Both of these features of apparent
relationship may come of chance, within a single series. Other features
of relationship must be examined in the attempt to infer biological law,
especially the _consistency_ with which given traits correlate to a
given degree with others, when investigated by different examiners, in
various groups; and the _form_ of the relationship, whether all the way
from highest to lowest, or only in central tendency.
VIII. PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROBLEM
Whatever may be the ultimate cause of the manifestations, educators are
practically concerned with the facts. The practical implications for
education of knowledge gleaned up to the present time, concerning the
coherence among mental functions, have been well stated by Burt, in his
recent discussion of _Mental and Scholastic Tests_: “The examiner should
always discriminate between children who are backward in most subjects,
and children who are backward in one subject, or limited group of
subjects, alone. A child, for example, who suffers merely from a
specialized disability in reading and spelling, such as so-called ‘word
blindness,’ is to be carefully distinguished from one who is in every
respect mentally defective.
“As I have shown in memoranda previously published, educational
attainments depend largely upon capacities of two kinds: first, a common
or general capacity, entering into every subject in different degrees,
but best exhibited in those that need thought-processes of a higher
order, such as the comprehension of reading matter among young children,
and, among older children, problem arithmetic and literary (or rather
logical) composition; secondly, specific capabilities—such as
arithmetical ability, linguistic ability, manual ability, and musical
ability—entering into a small group of subjects. A child who is
deficient in the former will be backward in all subjects—most backward
in those subjects most dependent on this central capacity (such as the
subjects first named), least backward in those subjects least dependent
on it (such as manual and musical subjects). A child who is deficient in
one of the specific capacities alone will be backward in the limited
group of implicated subjects, and in none but these.”
McCall writes as follows: “There is an objectively and practically
measurable something, which constitutes the core of most aptitudes. It
is overlaid with various incidental abilities, and furthered or retarded
by emotional or physical characteristics of the individual. This
something is general intelligence. If an individual’s intelligence is
all that is known, some mistakes will be made in attempting vocational
guidance, but if only one thing can be known, general intelligence is
perhaps most important.... A pupil’s intelligence score is an
approximate measure of the diameter of an approximate general ability
circle, and is hence an approximate basis for vocational guidance.
“But any individual who assumes that all the spokes in an ability-wheel
are of exactly equal length, or that instances of marked special
aptitudes do not exist, or even that most individuals do not possess
some tendency toward a special aptitude, would make as egregious an
error as one who assumed that all individuals are markedly lopsided.”
These two summaries of the present status of this problem from the
practical point of view, coming as they do, the one from a student of
the British school, the other from a student of Thorndike, show how the
two originally conflicting interpretations have been approaching middle
ground. There is found to be a quality of the individual, which results
in generally superior, mediocre, or inferior performances in his case—a
positive coherence in the amounts of all traits possessed, extending
even to appreciable coherence between mental and physical. General
intelligence is now measured, for practical purposes, as Spearman long
ago predicted. Nevertheless, there are, as Thorndike maintained and
maintains, mental functions, standing in which is hardly predictable
from knowledge of other capacities. In rare cases there may be complete
discrepancy in rank between performance in one task and performance in
other tasks, with equal training. These are the cases of special talents
and defects, to which this volume is devoted.
IX. MEASUREMENT OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE: THE IQ
We now see that the “general” factor in intelligence may be defined
simply as the positive coherence which exists among the multitudinous
abilities of an individual, as respects their amounts. The first to
obtain a quantitative measure of general intelligence, for the practical
purpose of classifying school children, was Binet. Binet concluded from
reflection on the research done, that failure or success in one mental
function may be of slight significance for the classification of an
individual, because correlation is imperfect; but that failure or
success in a score of different functions must be of very great
significance, because correlation among mental functions tends strongly
to be highly positive. Working on this basis, he devised a large number
of mental tests, intended to sample the individual’s performance in many
different functions.
A mental test may be defined as a standard stimulus, which provokes a
response capable of quantitative interpretation. Binet devised numerous
standard stimuli, and a method of interpreting the responses elicited,
in terms of a context of scores made by children of various ages,
throughout the period of immaturity. His measurements were thus in terms
of “mental age,” a phrase now somewhat familiar in education.
The science of mental measurement is rapidly progressing to more exact
usage. The concept of “mental age” when applied to persons who vary in
birthday age is in some respects misleading, and in other respects quite
inapplicable (as with superior adults). General intelligence is at
present usually scored in terms of points achieved, percentile attained
in total distribution, or of mental ratio. The most reliable scales now
available for the measurement of general intelligence in school
children, score in terms of mental age and intelligence quotient (IQ).
This measure (IQ) signifies the ratio borne by the intellectual level
attained by a given child in tests, to the level attained by the typical
child of his birthday age. For instance, a child 9 years 6 months old
has an IQ of 100, if his score in tests equals that made by the average
child of 9 years 6 months. If he is inferior to the average child of his
age, the amount of such inferiority will be expressed by a ratio less
than 100. Thus, if his performance equals only that of the average child
of 5 years 2 months, his IQ will be 62 months ÷ 114 months, or 54
(dropping fractions less than .5). On the other hand, if he is superior
to the average, attaining, let us say, the performance of the average
child of 14 years 0 months, his IQ will be 168 months ÷ 114 months, or
147. An IQ of 100 may thus be thought of as “par” in general
intelligence for a school child, while anything less may be thought of
as “below par” to the extent indicated; and anything greater than 100
may be thought of as “above par.” The IQ shows the point of focus, for
amounts of performance in a variety of mental functions. It derives its
value for educational procedure from the positive correlation, which has
been demonstrated to exist among performances in mental operations.
Scales at present available will measure general intelligence, in terms
of IQ, about as low as IQ 10, and about as high as IQ 190, at certain
periods of development. No doubt human intelligence ranges somewhat
below and above these limits, but adequate methods of establishing the
two extremes have not yet been devised. It is by no means usually
realized that the range of individual differences in general ability is
so wide that it is extremely difficult to invent methods of discovering
its full extent. However, for practical purposes, available scales are
adequate to cover the range for young school children, because
intelligences that fall below IQ 25 or above IQ 175 are so rare as to be
dealt with very seldom.
Within the limitations named, the general intelligence of school
children can now be determined by a competent examiner, with a very
small margin of error. The average error made by such an examiner will
not exceed ± 5 IQ.
Not all scales for the measurement of general intelligence are scorable
in terms of IQ. Some have been standardized in terms of “raw” points
achieved, and some in terms of percentile status. There is at present
much variety of usage in scoring, the ideal being to find _units_ of
measurement. It does not lie within the scope of this volume to treat
the problem of establishing units for the measurement of mental traits.
The general intelligence of the children to be discussed here has
usually been determined in terms of IQ, which will be comprehended from
the brief description given.
An ideal of students of mental measurement is to devise a scale which
will measure any intelligence, from the lowest to the highest existing,
after maturity, in units every one of which is equal to every other; and
to devise a scale fulfilling the same requirements for each 12-months
interval of the period of immaturity. This ideal is far from being
realized at the present time, but the future will see it achieved.
In the meantime scales for the measurement of special talents, which are
not measured by the scales for measuring general ability, are being
worked out. What these special talents are we shall now consider.
X. THE MEASUREMENT OF SPECIAL ABILITY
Although much further research is required before we can identify all
the mental functions which are incoherent with general intelligence, we
already have some knowledge of the matter, useful for the welfare of
school children. Certain abilities are shown repeatedly by different
investigators to be relatively independent. Success in music and in
representative drawing is very slightly correlated with success in other
school subjects. Spelling is far from perfectly predictable from grades
in schooling generally. Mechanics is relatively independent. Whereas
ability in reading and in arithmetic is highly, but not perfectly,
correlated with general competence.
These facts mean that from knowledge of a pupil’s general intelligence
we can make very reliable predictions as to his capacity for reading and
for arithmetic, somewhat less reliable predictions as to his aptitude
for spelling or mechanics, and that our predictions concerning his
ability to draw, sing, or play musical instruments should be given
without confidence in their reliability, if given at all.
Other kinds of performances, like the management of people, appreciation
of a joke, dancing, the management of wild or domestic animals, have not
been thoroughly studied in their relation to general intelligence,
though these and scores of others which will occur to the reader, might
be of great significance for practical psychology, if shown to be
somewhat independent talents.
As we have already said, most of the functions performed by human beings
are very complex, and capable of analysis. To read, understand, and
execute a page of any musical composition is a very complicated
performance. The attempt to measure special ability has been the attempt
first to scale total performance in the function, and second to scale
performance in the various coördinating functions contributing to total
result. Thus in the case of musical talent, Seashore has found by
analysis a large number of contributing factors, and has actually
devised scales of measurement for five of these subsidiary functions.
Measurement more or less adequate can now be made of ability to read,
spell, draw, write, put mechanical contrivances together, and calculate.
This list does not by any means exhaust the possibilities of measurement
in particular functions at present, but exemplifies them. Slowly we are
approaching the point of being in position to tell not only how a child
stands in general intelligence, but also to indicate his status in
regard to special abilities. The “picture” of the total relationship
among a person’s abilities is called a psychograph.
XI. THE PSYCHOGRAPHIC PICTURE OF INDIVIDUALITY
A psychograph may consist merely of numerical statements of the
individual’s standing in various mental capacities respectively; or it
may be presented in the form of a graph drawn from the figures. No
standard graph has been agreed upon. Sometimes the method is to present
points of deviation from a horizontal line representing the typical
performance; sometimes to present the deviations from a vertical line,
representing the typical; sometimes to present deviations along the
spokes of a “wheel,” the typical being taken as a circumference drawn
midway between the center and the perimeter of the circle.
[Illustration:
FIG. 3.—The psychograph of a school boy, showing his standing in
various mental functions; illustrating use of the horizontal line to
denote typical performance. The scores are in terms of mental age.
(From Hollingworth’s _Judging Human Character_. Reproduced by
courtesy of D. Appleton and Company.)
]
Figure 3 is an illustration of the first mentioned mode of presentation.
It shows the status of a school boy in various mental functions
measured. This boy is 18 years old. In interpreting the psychograph,
which is platted in terms of mental age, it must be borne in mind that
many of the capacities here included are matured by the age of 16 years.
The individual is not, therefore, subnormal with regard to them. This
case illustrates some of the difficulties of treating adolescents and
adults in terms of mental age.
[Illustration:
FIG. 4.—The psychographs of three school girls, showing their
standings in various mental functions, measured to determine
mathematical ability; illustrating use of the vertical line to
denote typical performance. The scores are in terms of weighted
deviations. Scores to the right are above, and scores to the left
are below, average. (From _Tests of Mathematical Ability and Their
Prognostic Value_. Reproduced by courtesy of Agnes L. Rogers.)
]
Figure 4 shows the use of the vertical line as the “type” or “norm,”
picturing the extent to which the individual measured departs from or
corresponds to the typical, in the functions tested.
Figure 5 illustrates the use of the circle, with radii to show standing
in the various mental functions. The adolescent presented is near the
typical (the 50 percentile) in nearly all functions measured.
Which of these forms of graph is best adapted to its purpose has not
been determined. All are simply different methods of picturing the same
facts.
The chief obstacle to the platting of psychographs, for such capacities
as are now measurable, is that scales for measurement have been
standardized in different terms. To plat a lucid psychograph, some
traits on which have been measured in P.E., some in IQ, some in
percentiles, some in “raw” points, some in values of a T Scale, some in
terms of school grade achieved[7] is now impossible, because of the
difficulties of equating all these “steps” of difference. The
psychographs here presented will, therefore, be understood to be crude,
merely approximating the lucidity of those which will be made in future,
when the science of mental measurement has made greater progress. Each
of the methods of standardization has some advantages and some
disadvantages, as compared with the others. Only experience and
discussion can finally determine which is best. It is desirable to
achieve uniformity as soon as possible, in order that the psychographic
study of individuals may be facilitated.
[Illustration:
1. General Intelligence (Stanford-Binet)
2. Completion Test (Trabue)
3. Cancellation (Pinter)
4. Digit Symbol (Pinter)
5. Opposites (Pinter)
6. Mechanical Ability (Stenquist)
7. Tonal Memory (Seashore)
8. Pitch (Seashore)
9. Time (Seashore)
10. Intensity (Seashore)
11. Pictoral Completion (Healy)
12. Grip in Hand (Smedley)
FIG. 5.—The psychograph of a school boy, showing his standing in
various mental functions; illustrating use of the circle as a
diagram, the median circumference denoting the performance of
typical persons of his age. The scores are in terms of percentiles.
]
XII. AT WHAT AGE IS MENTAL ENDOWMENT EVIDENT?
The question arises as to when special talents and deficiencies become
evident in growing individuals. We know almost beyond any doubt that the
degree of general intelligence is manifested from the beginning of life,
and could be measured then if our instruments of precision were fine
enough. With present methods we cannot undertake with confidence the
measurement of general intelligence much before school age. Extreme
deviations may be reliably identified as early as 3 years of age, or
earlier, but slight amounts of deviation cannot be reliably determined
by available methods before the age of 5 or 6. The inadequacy of method
with very young children arises, partly because it is so difficult to
obtain non-select children under school age for purposes of
standardization, partly because of the coarseness of the “steps” at
present used to measure. The most refined and reliable scales we have
are cast in terms of “mental age,” and some do not allow for any
difference of less than “2 months of mental age.” An error of only two
misscorings in the same direction would therefore result in a
considerable error in the IQ of a child 3 years old; since 4 months is a
large percentage of 36 months.
As early as 6 years, however, even by present methods, we can determine
objectively the individual’s status in general intelligence. The
indications are that when the measurement of special talents has made
similar progress, we shall find that these become evident just as early
as general ability does. These special talents are gifts, innate in the
organism, and manifested no doubt from the beginning of life, just as
general intelligence is.
In the discussion of special gifts for music, drawing, and calculation
we shall see that investigators have been particularly struck by the
very early age at which these were manifested in the persons studied. It
is common for those who later became historical prodigies in these
performances to have shown symptoms of their ability as early as 3 or 4
years of age.
On the other hand, special deficiencies in these functions are not
commonly noted until after school has been entered, usually long after.
This is inevitable, because no one is likely to suspect a child of tone
deafness, for instance, until his music teacher has worked with him for
some time. But conspicuous aptitude for melody and rhythm is likely to
be noticed.
The question arises: Can these special talents be acquired, or the
special deficiencies be overcome, by any course of training? Scientific
psychology tends more and more strongly to the conclusion that
psychology and education can do nothing to alter the amounts or
relationships of innate mental endowment. They can but measure endowment
and give it training suited to its requirements. The history of Seguin’s
form-board seems to illustrate the evolution of the point of view on
this question. About sixty years ago this form-board was hopefully used
as a supposed _means of altering_ original endowment. Feeble-minded
children were given exercises in placing and replacing the blocks in it,
in order that they might become more intelligent. To-day this form-board
is used as a _means of gauging_ original endowment. Psychology cannot
create endowment; it can merely measure and describe it. Education
cannot bestow mental gifts; it can only utilize such as are innately
present within the organism. Talent and genius can be created in
children only by the procreation of parents, who are the biological
carriers of extraordinary endowment.
XIII. THE FREQUENCY OF MARKED SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS
No census of special talents or defects of given degree has ever been
taken. Surveys have been made showing the distribution of musical
sensitivity, of ability in drawing, spelling, calculation, and so forth.
These distributions tell us the frequency of extreme deviations in these
functions, but they do not tell us to what extent the deviations are
_special_. From them we cannot learn whether or not the extremely
fortunate deviations are identified with great general superiority, and
whether the unfortunate deviations represent the work of generally
stupid children. What we require is a survey of children of uniform age,
educational opportunity, and IQ, in respect to music, drawing, spelling,
and so forth.
Although we cannot state with precision the frequency with which marked
special gifts occur among the stupid, or marked special deficiencies
occur among the highly intelligent, we know that such cases are quite
rare. It is necessary to remind ourselves constantly of this fact,
because it would gratify the demand for justice and fair play to find
that special gifts are freely distributed among the generally inferior,
and special defects frequently found among the superior. The truth which
satisfies our desires need be stated but once, to be apprehended and
remembered. The truth which offends kindliness, self-interest, or
cherished beliefs, and is hence unsatisfying, requires emphasis.
Therefore we must take particular care to bear in mind throughout the
whole of our discussion of special talents and defects, that we are
dealing with comparatively rare phenomena. The distribution of
abilities, as determined by biological law, does not correspond to our
concept of fair play. Nearly all stupid persons are inferior in all
capacities. The great majority of gifted persons are superior in nearly
all their abilities. The majority of human beings are neither markedly
inferior nor markedly superior, but are “typical” (not far from the
median or average) in all respects.
XIV. POSSIBLE ORIGIN OF THE DISSOCIATION OF CERTAIN CAPACITIES
Why should certain capacities, like musical sensitivity and ability in
representative drawing, be so loosely correlated with general ability,
throughout the species? Why should other capacities, like ability to
name opposites and to complete sentences, give such high and positive
total correlation? We do not know with assurance the answers to these
questions. Perhaps the evolutionary explanation is adequate. Those
variants lived to transmit their hereditary constitution, whose
functions were so correlated that life was well sustained. Perhaps
functions are, therefore, loosely correlated, where nothing would be
added to the probability of survival by high correlation.
It makes little difference in a world like ours whether an intelligent
man can or cannot sing. It is of small moment whether one who can easily
detect absurdities of statement can also produce fine representative
drawings. It is very important for survival, on the other hand, whether
one who can detect similarities can also detect differences, in the
objects which surround him, and whether he can at the same time
anticipate incomplete meanings in the sentences and gestures of those
whom he meets.
The suggestion also arises as to whether those performances which do not
cohere closely with performances in general are such as involve the
sensori-motor apparatus to a special degree, as distinguished from the
central nervous system. Those functions which depend relatively little
upon equipment of eye, ear, or hand, but essentially upon the
sensitivity and integrity of the cortical neurones, might be expected to
cohere closely, constituting what we should properly call intelligence.
Where performance depends largely on sense organs and muscles, the
correlation with functions largely independent of sensori-motor
apparatus might be expected to be only as great as the tendency to
general organic quality would bring about. Certainly drawing, music, and
mechanical ability, for example, involve eye, ear, and muscle to a much
greater extent than does the detection of absurdities in life
situations, or the learning of symbolic significances. The mechanical
technique of reading clearly involves the sensori-motor apparatus to a
much greater extent than does the comprehension of what is read.
It would be valuable to determine to what extent a hierarchy of
correlations would be consistently maintained in the use of tests,
selected for graduated degrees of involvement of equipment accessory to
the central nervous system.[8]
REFERENCES
BAERWALD, R.—_Theorie der Begabung_; Reisland, Leipzig, 1896.
BINET, A., and SIMON, TH.—“Théorie nouvelle de la démence”; _L’année
psychologique_, 1909.
BROWN, WM.—“Some Experimental Results in the Correlation of Mental
Abilities”; _British Journal of Psychology_, 1909–10.
BURT, C.—“Experimental Tests of General Intelligence”; _British
Journal of Psychology_, 1909–10.
BURT, C.—_Mental and Scholastic Tests_; London County Council, 1921.
HART, B., and SPEARMAN, C.—“General Ability, Its Existence and
Nature”; _British Journal of Psychology_, 1912.
HART, B., and SPEARMAN, C.—“Mental Tests of Dementia”; _Journal of
Abnormal Psychology_, 1915.
HOLLINGWORTH, H. L.—_Judging Human Character_; D. Appleton and Co.,
New York, 1922.
MCCALL, W. A.—_Correlation of Some Psychological and Educational
Measurements_; Teachers College, Columbia University, 1916.
MCCALL, W. A.—_How to Measure in Education_; The Macmillan Company,
New York, 1922.
MOORE, T. V.—“The Correlation between Memory and Perception in the
Presence of Diffuse Cortical Degeneration”; _Psychological
Monographs_, 1919.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—“Ueber das frühzeitige Auftreten der Begabung”;
_Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie_, 1919.
RUGG, H. O.—_Statistical Methods Applied to Education_; Houghton
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1917.
SIMPSON, B. R.—_Correlations of Mental Abilities_; Columbia
University, 1912.
SPEARMAN, C.—“The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two
Things”; _American Journal of Psychology_, 1904.
SPEARMAN, C.—“General Intelligence Objectively Determined and
Measured”; _American Journal of Psychology_, 1904.
SPEARMAN, C., and KRUEGER, F.—“Die Korrelation zwischen verschiedenen
geistigen Leistungsfähigkeiten”; _Zeitschrift für Psychologie_,
1906.
TERMAN, L. M.—_The Measurement of Intelligence_; Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, 1916.
THOMPSON, J. R.—“The Rôle of Interference Factors in Producing
Correlation”; _British Journal of Psychology_, 1919.
THOMSON, G.—“The Proof or Disproof of the Existence of General
Ability”; _British Journal of Psychology_, 1919.
Thomson, G.—“The Hierarchy of Abilities”; _British Journal of
Psychology_, 1919.
THORNDIKE, E. L., and AIKENS, H. A.—“Correlation among Perceptive and
Associative Processes”; _Psychological Review_, 1902.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—_Heredity, Correlation, and Sex Differences in School
Abilities_; Columbia University, 1903.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“On the Organization of Intellect”; _Psychological
Review_, 1921.
WEGLEIN, D. E.—_The Correlation of Abilities of High School Pupils_;
Johns Hopkins University, 1917.
CHAPTER III
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEURAL BASIS
I. THE PHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF MENTAL LIFE
Psychologists no longer question that the product of mind, which we call
behavior, by which mind is judged, is in some way intimately connected
with the sensitivity and integrity of the nervous system. The proof of
this has often been set forth, and will merely be taken for granted
here. Any organ or substance which reacts upon this sensitivity or
integrity may then indirectly influence mental life in certain respects.
For instance, the glandular system of the body, especially that part of
it which comprises the glands of internal secretion, may affect behavior
by affecting the growth or function of the nervous system. Drugs may
influence mental processes, because they act upon the neurones. However,
all present knowledge points to the conclusion that if the nervous
tissue could be isolated from such influences, mental life would be
immune from their effects. Mental life is but indirectly subject to such
influences, in so far as nervous tissue is affected in a particular
manner by them.
II. ATTEMPTED LOCALIZATION OF MENTAL FUNCTIONS
When it was thought that such supposed entities as “the reason,” “the
will,” “the memory,” and “the imagination” would be identified as mental
functions, it was also supposed that a definite location for each might
be found in the brain. As investigators were compelled to change their
concept of a mental function, and to define mental functions in terms of
observable performance, they still sought to discover whether or not
each performance might be referred to a definite set of neurones. This
question of brain localization constitutes a current topic of research.
So little information can be given as yet upon the subject that it is,
perhaps, unwarranted to consider it at all in this volume, where the
chief interest does not center in the controverted theories of
neurology.
Much of the proof for the statement first made in this chapter, that the
nervous system is the physiological mechanism of mental life, has been
adduced through study of neuropathology. Persons impaired in a given
manner in their nervous tissue, show behavior characteristically
altered. Moreover, given alterations in behavior can be produced
experimentally in animals, by altering the connections in the nervous
system, and by no other means. Through these observations it has been
possible to assign certain functions to parts of the physiological
mechanism.
In the case of man, both by observation and experiment, “the nervous
structure below the hemispheres of the cerebrum has been excluded from
the possibility of acting as the immediate physical basis of mental
states.”[9] The higher mental processes, which involve the possibility
of speaking, calculating, and responding by learned reactions to complex
situations, have their correlate in the cortex (the agglomeration of
neurones in the cerebral hemispheres). Physiological psychologists
therefore investigate the cortex, in their search for the particular
neurone-patterns or areas involved in particular intellectual
performances.
The problems of brain localization have, therefore, been approached
through the study of the alterations in performance, which accompany
alterations in given areas of the cortex. Alterations in restricted
areas of brain tissue, in human beings, are brought about chiefly by
obstruction of a blood vessel, hemorrhage, tumor, and laceration or
depression through injury to the skull.
One of the early observations, bearing upon topics considered in the
subsequent chapters of this volume, was that by Broca. Broca described
two cases of pathological impairment in a limited convolutional region
of the left cerebral hemisphere, in which the use of words was lost,
without loss of intelligence as expressed in other ways. Broca therefore
suggested “articulate language” to be a function connected with the part
of the brain to which the impairment had been restricted.
A large number of similar observations have been reported since Broca’s
publication, describing cases of selective loss of some linguistic
function, especially in connection with paralysis of limbs. The
localization of articulate language, as a special ability, in Broca’s
area, is still, however, debated by those most competent to discuss the
matter, and no positive statement is at present warranted. Head, one of
the foremost among modern students of neurology, has recently advanced
the theory that special disturbances of articulate language (aphasia,
alexia, agraphia, aphemia) are due to disturbances of those psychic
processes whereby _symbolic association_ is accomplished,—whereby men
learn to imbue symbols with meaning. Von Monakow interpreted the array
of data existing in 1914 to show that all gnostic functions
(intellectual performances) pertain to the cortex as a whole, and not to
any center or centers in the brain. He held that no case of aphasia
permanently remains, unless there is at the same time diffuse cortical
degeneration. Ladd and Woodworth, writing in 1911, concluded that “there
is good evidence that the Broca region is the most vulnerable part of
the cortex, as regards the motor coördination of speech,” but that “the
entire cerebrum would seem to be, of necessity, involved in man’s
linguistic attainments and uses.”
III. THEORY OF CONGENITAL LESION OR ATROPHY CRITICIZED
Reasoning from analogy with cases where a function of language is lost
selectively, through organic disease or impairment of brain structure,
it was thought by those who first described innate special disabilities,
as in reading or spelling, that such defects must be due to congenital
brain lesions or atrophies. Neurological research has never verified
this supposition. No cases showing innate disability to be correlated
with any peculiarities of restricted areas in the cortex have ever been
recorded. Tilney and Riley, summarizing critically the data of neurology
in 1921, cite no cases considered to afford authentic evidence of
localized lesions or defects, as the basis of congenital difficulty in
reading, spelling, music, or other functions with which the present
treatise is concerned.
The theory of innate lesion or atrophy of a cortical area, to account
for disability in a special mental function, seems unscientific for
other reasons, aside from the fact that it has never been objectively
verified by actual observation of a structural defect. One of these
reasons is that a theory, formulated to take care of the neural basis of
specialized disabilities, must take care of specialized gifts, as well.
Cases where a generally stupid child is innately gifted with special
ability to master the mechanics of reading, for example, are no doubt as
frequent as cases where a generally capable child learns them with
difficulty. The theory of specialized lesions or other faults of
structure might cover disabilities, but would it cover special talents
as well?
Still another consideration prevents us from regarding the theory of
localized brain defects as masterly. This is the fact referred to in our
preliminary discussion, that every single mental function, which yields
to measurement, is found to be distributed among human beings according
to a probability curve. (See Figure 1, page 8.) The functions which we
herein consider are not exceptions to this principle. Performance in
reading, spelling, arithmetic, drawing, music, and so forth, shows
children or adults, chosen at random, to be distributed in the given
form. Those who have exceptional talents or defects in the function fall
within the _symmetrical surface_ of this curve, at its opposite
extremes. Nowhere is there a point of demarkation, denoting absolute
lack of the trait in a group falling below that point, as there would be
if a number of individuals suffering from lesions were introduced into
the distribution. We may fairly demand of a theory which undertakes the
explanation of the most extreme deviations, the explanation of the
deviations of lesser magnitude, as well. The curve obtained by test
approximates that form which mathematicians tell us appears when an
infinite number of factors act together in an infinite number of ways,
the extreme deviations occurring inevitably, by chance. A theory
introducing the adventitious circumstance of lesion or atrophy is thus
superfluous to the explanation of the extreme unfortunate deviations. To
admit it would violate the rule of scientific method known as the law of
parsimony, for we do not need it in order to explain the facts.
IV. RESTITUTION OF FUNCTION WITHOUT REGENERATION OF STRUCTURE IN INJURED
BRAINS
Fully as important as any of the facts mentioned above, for criticism of
the theory that special deficiencies are due to localized defects in
brain structure, are the experiments with reëducation of those who have
suffered _loss_ of an ability. Persons who have lost the power to read,
or write, or speak after destruction of brain tissue, may learn to
perform these functions again, without regeneration of the area
impaired.
If the neurones destroyed, and no others, were the special mechanisms
rendering possible the functions lost, how would restitution of function
be possible, without repair of the destroyed tissues?
V. ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A NEURAL BASIS FOR THE “TWO FACTOR THEORY” AND
“THE TWO LEVEL THEORY”
In prosecuting their researches from the psychological point of view, by
the method of testing _performance_, Spearman, Moore, Thomson, and other
investigators referred to in the preceding chapter, did not neglect the
attempt to reconcile their findings with a possible neural basis.
Spearman wrote: “The theory of ‘two factors’ just delineated, though
primarily of psychological origin, has shown itself capable of
translation into terms of cerebral physiology.” The “specific factors”
Spearman would identify with some “particular cortical region, or other
neural characteristic, coördinated to the particular performance in
question.” The “general factor” is derived from the fact that all
neurones of the cortex arise from the same heredity, and must resemble
each other, as “the hair in one region of a person’s scalp normally
resembles that on the other regions” (a somewhat precarious analogy);
also, from the fact that all parts of the brain are nourished by the
same blood supply; and from the supposition that “each momentary focus
of cortical activity receives continual support from energy liberated by
the entire cortex (or some still wider neural area).”
Thomson said: “Let us suppose that the mind, in carrying out any
activity such as a mental test, has two levels at which it can operate.
The elements of activity at the lower level are entirely specific; but
those at the higher level are such that they may come into play in more
than one kind of activity, in more than one mental test.... The
difference between the levels may be physiological, as between cortex
and spinal cord, or it may be the difference between conscious and
non-conscious, or what not. The theory may later be reduced to a less
harsh dichotomy and there may be gradations from the one level to the
other.”
These attempts to find a neural basis for the “Two Factor Theory” and
the “Two Level Theory” are obviously not very complete.
VI. PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROBLEM
The conclusion is that at present experimental neurology has nothing
secure to offer by way of establishing the neural basis of the special
talents and defects, which we wish to consider. We must suppose that in
some way unknown they are connected with neural activity, but
localization of each function in a restricted area of the brain
structure has never been established.
The deviations in performance are almost certainly biological, and not
pathological. Each mental function is by original nature possible in
some degree to every person, the degrees of potentiality being of
enormous range, and distributed among members of the species according
to a frequency curve. The form of this curve indicates that the
determinants of aptitude are approximately infinite in possibility of
combination. The extremes of deviation from the _typical result_ of
these determinants acting together, are, as stated, very widely
separated, as in any game of chance combining many factors, but they
nevertheless have limits, which are knowable. The determinants exist
chiefly (perhaps exclusively) in the germ-plasm, from which human
organisms spring, and which carries inheritance from countless
combinations of ancestry for persons now alive. It is neither necessary
nor plausible to introduce a theory of brain lesion or atrophy to
explain the extreme minus deviations, leaving the equally extreme plus
deviations thus unexplained.
The sum total of a child’s standings on these curves, in the multitude
of mental functions which are possible to human beings, constitutes his
psychograph or _mentality_. The physiological aspects of this
inheritance may ultimately be found in brain chemistry, or in the
discovery of some principle of physics at present unknown. It may be an
inheritance of function, rather than of structure. We do not know.
The present status of the problems indicated in this chapter may be
recapitulated in the words of Ladd and Woodworth: “The analysis of
mental functions into their elements, in a manner suitable for
physiological use, has scarcely been begun.”
REFERENCES
BROCA, P. P.—_Sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé, avec
deux observations d’aphémie_; V. Masson et Fils, Paris, 1861.
FRANZ, S. I.—“Cerebral-Mental Relations”; _Psychological Review_,
1921.
HEAD, H.—“Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech”; _Brain_, 1920.
HEAD, H.—“Release of Function in the Nervous System”; _Proceedings of
the Royal Society_, Series B, 1921.
HEAD, H.—“Disorders of Symbolic Thinking Due to Local Lesions of the
Brain”; _British Journal of Psychology_, 1921.
LADD, G., and WOODWORTH, R. S.—_Physiological Psychology_; Charles
Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1911.
LASHLEY, K. S.—“Studies of Cerebral Functions in Learning”;
_Psycho-Biology_, 1920.
MONAKOW, C. VON—_Die Lokalisation im Grosshirn_; Bergmann, Wiesbaden,
1914.
TILNEY, F., and RILEY, H. A.—_The Form and Functions of the Central
Nervous System_; Hoeber, New York, 1921.
CHAPTER IV
READING
I. RELATION BETWEEN IQ AND CAPACITY FOR READING
It has been stated that most of the mental functions, which human beings
perform, are not elementary, but are capable of analysis into many
contributing factors. Reading has been shown by such analysis to be a
very complex function, interference in any part of which may result in
disability. The causes of failure to learn to read under instruction,
therefore, differ from child to child. Huey, who spent years studying
the psychology of reading, finally became so imbued with the wonder of
the process, that he felt that to know it in all its aspects and
ramifications would be to know all psychology.
Correlations between IQ and reading ability, among children of the same
age, in both silent and oral reading, are positive and very high. This
is especially true of reading for the understanding of sentences.
Correlation between general intelligence, as measured by a scale like
Stanford-Binet, and reading ability, as measured by a scale like
Trabue’s Language Completion, or Thorndike-McCall’s scale for
understanding of sentences, reaches as high as .90, and hardly ever in
any group falls below .60.
These correlations indicate that general mental maturity is very closely
related to learning to read. The very intelligent children are the best
readers in by far the majority of cases, while school children who do
not learn to read under ordinary instruction, are usually feeble-minded.
On the basis of experimentation in this field, Ranschburg suggests that
even so mechanical an aspect of reading as ability to call correctly
words exposed in a tachistoscope, may serve as a rough means of
separating feeble-minded school children from the others. Nevertheless,
even with correlation coefficients reaching as high as .90, there may
occur occasional cases of very marked discrepancy between general
intelligence and ability to read.
Very early reading, with little or no formal instruction, is often found
among children of very high IQ. Of four children measuring over 180 IQ
(Stanford-Binet), found by the present writer in New York City, every
one learned to read simple matter fluently during or before the third
year of life. Their early mastery of reading was but a symptom of their
great general capacity.
Just what degree of intellectual development is typically reached before
children can be taught to read is not known, but it is probably not far
from a 6-year level. That is, children of ordinary intelligence can
learn to read after they have passed their sixth birthday. A child who
can read fluently at a mental age much below this must be considered to
show a special ability; while one who cannot begin to learn at or above
this general level[10] is afflicted with a special defect, in some of
the functions which enter into the reading process. These functions may
be classified as those which enter into _mechanics_, and those which
enter into _comprehension_, of reading.
II. THE MECHANICS OF READING
Under the mechanics of the process fall the _sensory_, _motor_, and to a
great extent the _perceptual_, elements in reading.
_The sensory elements_ include the participation of eye, ear, and
muscles as sense organs, furnishing respectively the visual, auditory,
and kinæsthetic contributions to the total function. In the case of the
blind, tactual sensations replace the visual, and in the deaf, the
visual replace the auditory. Sensory impairment, that is, impairment of
eye, ear, or muscle as an organ, may prevent an intelligent child from
learning to read. Examination of the special senses is the first step
dictated by common sense and scientific procedure, when an intelligent
child does not learn to read. In this way it has happened historically
that the first cases of special disability in reading and spelling among
school children have been reported by ophthalmologists, to whom they
were taken for examination of the eyes. Parents naturally sought the
expert who knows eyes in such cases, for to one who has not studied the
psychology of reading, it appears that a person “reads with his eyes”
only.
The _visual defects_ which may most commonly interfere with the mastery
of the mechanics of reading are myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism,
cataract, muscle-weakness, diplopia, and anomalies of the retina.
Surveys of school children by competent oculists have shown that
considerable numbers suffer from eye-defects sufficient to cause
difficulty.
_Deafness_ obviously may constitute an interference, since the correct
sound of the word is essential to reading. Not so obvious is the rôle of
the _kinæsthetic sensations_, but we are led to believe that their part
is important through the studies of Fernald, later to be reported here.
Under the motor elements involved, we have to consider _articulation_,
_pronunciation_, _eye-movements_, and the _coördination of arm, hand,
and fingers_ in writing words. It is hard for an expert reader, like an
educated adult, to realize without first-hand study of the facts, to
what extent these elements originally entered into his learning. The
inexpert reader tends to retain lip-movements, and, indeed, movements of
the whole apparatus of articulation, in silent reading.
Perception of a stimulus may be defined for our purposes as seeing,
hearing, or otherwise interpreting it in a certain way. Perception is
habit, learned just as other habits are learned. We perceive the spoken
words “home again” as such, because we learned to do so. One who has not
learned, will not perceive two words, but only a jumble of articulate
sound. In reading, the _perceptual elements_ include the formulation of
habits of responding to parts, and to groups of words, as such. Many
investigations have been made of the perceptual elements in the
mechanics of reading within the past twenty years.
It has been discovered that the word may be learned without first
learning the separate letters which compose it. Spelling and reading are
thus psychologically far from identical. In perceiving a word, all parts
are not equally stressed. The first half and the upper half of the word
have a great advantage over the last and lower halves. In fluent
reading, the eye moves by jerks across the line, making three to five
pauses in crossing an ordinary page of printed matter. Oral reading
requires about 1.6 more pauses per line than silent reading, and the
average duration of these pauses is longer. Thus oral reading requires
44 to 64 per cent more perception time than does silent reading. The
unit of perception in reading may be the letter, the word, the phrase,
the sentence, or even the paragraph, according to the training of the
pupil, the degree of skill attained, and the extent to which he “skims.”
The letter or the word as the unit of perception results in halting and
expressionless oral reading, and in retarded silent reading.
These are some of the results of fundamental studies in the psychology
of reading, which help us to understand cases of individual difficulty.
Recently Gates has made intensive study of reading and spelling by the
methods of correlation, with special reference to disability. He finds
that partial and multiple correlations reveal an ability or abilities
common to all perceptual tests involving _words_ as materials,
sufficient to cause fairly high correlations between them, as compared
with the correlations between these tests and tests not involving words.
By hypothesis, this common factor is defined as an ability to perceive
clearly the significant details of words. The multiple correlations of
these tests with spelling are higher than with reading, and it is
suggested that those who have a very favorable form of word-perception
are to some extent learning (or relearning) to spell during the course
of ordinary reading. Gates also points out that poor reading is not
caused by bad habits of eye-movement, but on the contrary, faulty
eye-movements are merely symptomatic of the fact that the child cannot
read well. Not having mastered the mechanics of reading, his eyes move
hither and yon at random, seeking, by trial and error methods, to get at
the matter before him. Wrong eye-movements can be cured by teaching the
child how to read. The child cannot be taught to read by correcting his
eye-movements.
It should be added, finally, that all the functions referred to above,
and possibly others that analysis has not yet made evident, must be
synthesized in an automatic set of habits before the child becomes
proficient in the mechanics of reading.
III. COMPREHENSION IN READING
The elements of reading thus far considered are those that contribute to
mechanics. Reading to recognize forms and to pronounce words is to be
distinguished psychologically and pedagogically from reading for the
_understanding_ of sentences. Every teacher of much experience in the
elementary school will be able to recall children who could read
fluently from the printed page, but could not tell what they had read,
nor answer questions about the context. In reading to grasp meaning,
additional processes, more difficult to perform, are involved, beyond
those required to “see and say” the words.
As would be expected, the ability to master the mechanics of reading is
more loosely correlated with general intelligence than is ability to
_comprehend_ the matter read. The comprehension of meaning is a very
large factor in intelligence. It might almost be maintained that
intelligence is grasp of meaning. A child who has perfected the
mechanics of reading, understands what is read in accordance with his
general intelligence, as correlations prove.
Gates has shown that even in the case of children who are quite
deficient in oral reading, the correspondence between general
intelligence and comprehension of the context in silent reading, as
revealed in answers to questions about the material read, is very much
higher than would be believed probable. Such a child, using his lame
mechanics, draws meaning from fragments, in accordance with his general
intelligence.
On the other hand, young children are sometimes found, who have become
very fluent in mechanical reading, who can thus read very abstruse
matter, without getting any meaning from what they read, because of the
limitations of general intellectual development.
As a result of his studies of “Reading as Reasoning,” Thorndike
observes: “Reading may be wrong or inadequate (1) because of wrong
connection with words singly, (2) because of over-potency or
under-potency of elements, (3) because of failure to treat the ideas
produced by the reading as provisional and to inspect, and welcome or
reject them.”
This third cause of inferior reading is found invariably in children of
low IQ, for to read in this way, understandingly, involves the weighing
of many elements in a sentence, their organization in the proper
relations to one another, and the selection and rejection of
connotations—all functions of general intelligence. It is by tests of
such functions that IQ is determined. Therefore, it is not surprising
that comprehension in reading is so highly correlated with IQ, among
school children of the same age. It is between IQ and mechanical ability
to read words, that marked discrepancies may occasionally exist, as
illustrative cases show.
IV. WORD BLINDNESS
As has been stated, the first cases of inferiority in reading were
reported by ophthalmologists, who, upon discovering nothing wrong with
the visual apparatus of the child brought for examination, pronounced
the difficulty to be word blindness or “congenital alexia.” In using
these terms, they reasoned from analogy with pathological cases of
selective loss of function in adults, referred to by us in Chapter III.
The first cases reported from this point of view were, so far as the
present writer can determine, those of Kerr and those of Morgan, both
reporting in 1896. After these, a number of individual cases were
reported in France, England, Germany, and the United States. In 1915,
Schröck and Clemesha respectively summarized all literature to that
date, the former presenting a bibliography of thirty-two titles. The
great drawback to clear interpretation of these cases is that general
intelligence was not measured. Some, at least, of the children were
feeble-minded, for we find cited as evidence of good general endowment,
performances which we now know to be typical of children much younger
than those being described.
Hinshelwood, an ophthalmologist, published in 1917 a general discussion
of non-readers, from the medical standpoint. According to his treatment
of the subject, non-readers constitute a group apart, defined by some
congenital, pathological defect in brain structure, but for which they
would have read normally. This concept is directly derived from analogy
with cases of _lost_ function in diseased persons.
“By the term congenital word blindness, we mean a congenital defect
occurring in children with otherwise normal and undamaged brains
characterized by a difficulty in learning to read so great that it is
manifestly due to a pathological condition, and where the attempts to
teach the child by the ordinary methods have completely failed.... The
recognition of this condition was the direct outcome and result of the
previously acquired knowledge of those symptoms of cerebral disease,
which we have been studying.... No doubt it is a comparatively common
thing to find some who lag considerably behind their fellows, because of
their slowness and difficulty in acquiring their visual word memories,
but I regard these slight defects as only physiological variations, and
not to be regarded as pathological conditions. It becomes a source of
confusion to apply to such cases, as has been done of late, the term
congenital word blindness, which should be reserved for the really grave
degrees of this defect, which manifestly are the result of a
pathological condition of the visual memory center, and which have
proved refractory to all the ordinary methods of school instruction.”
This is the supposition which was critically considered in Chapter III,
and shown to be irreconcilable with facts known to psychology.
Hinshelwood did not make mental examinations of the cases which he
describes, by standard psychological methods. He did, however, work out
by experience a method of teaching, whereby all the non-reading children
described learned to read. This consists simply in returning to the
primitive method of instruction, beginning with the letters of the
alphabet as units of perception, and proceeding by teaching the spelling
of words. The necessity of individual teaching is insisted upon.
Aside from the improbabilities of neurological theory, this work is a
valuable contribution to the study of children who have special
difficulty in reading. It calls attention to the needs of such children,
and shows that they can be taught.
V. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SPECIAL DEFECT IN READING
In 1917 Bronner published several interesting cases of special
backwardness in reading, studied by the methods of psychological
analysis. Bronner states that deficiency in reading, in children of
normal sensory capacity and intelligence, sometimes is related to
special deficiencies in making visual associations or auditory
associations. In the former case the visual details of the word would be
elusive. In the latter case, the phonetic elements would be inadequately
heeded. Since ordinary success in reading arises through both these
avenues of approach, deficiency in either might result in poor reading.
Bronner suggests that the avenue which is most approachable in these
cases be specially utilized. All children cannot easily learn to read by
the method which serves the majority. Bronner does not give results of
experimental teaching in the cases analyzed.
In 1918 Schmitt reported thirteen cases from the Chicago Schools, with
many details of mental and physical examination. Unfortunately,
systematic standard tests of general intelligence were not given, which
must be considered a defect in the study, since exact comparisons of
reading deficiency and mental age, or IQ, cannot be made. We have the
investigator’s assurance that “sufficient tests were given to establish
normal intelligence.”
The conclusion that special deficiency in reading ability was present,
was made upon the following criteria: (1) regular school attendance; (2)
reasonably good health and physical condition; (3) no sign of visual
defect; (4) persisting slowness in learning to read, or total inability
manifested over one or more years of school life; (5) general mental
ability good or average; (6) no other interfering factor, such as
foreign language in the home, dislike of school, abnormal
unresponsiveness to school, or other social situations. Where all these
conditions were satisfactorily met, central deficiency in capacity for
learning to read was assumed to characterize the child.
It was then found that many of the thirteen thus selected had particular
difficulty with phonetics—could not readily connect the sounds of
letters with the visual symbol. They could all match words. All could
point out the difference in two words differing in one letter. Those who
were old enough to have learned to write could transpose a page of print
into script. These facts are taken as evidence that the difficulty must
be central and not sensory.
Four of the children were followed up with teaching in a special class.
Phonics were taught. The easiest letters—those that can be
prolonged—were taught first (r, f, l, m, s). In the effort to make the
work interesting, the phonics were presented in a story, associating
each sound with parts of the story. As many associations as possible
were established to fix the _sound_ of _the letter_.
All who received this special training are reported to have improved
greatly, in a short time. Schmitt concludes that there are a few
children who are so constituted that they cannot learn readily by the
word and sentence method. “Every teacher uses this (the phonic method)
to some extent, but to a very slight extent. The average child quickly
learns to associate the printed letters and words with their vocal
prototypes, without special emphasis on phonics, or special attention to
associations.
“Whatever may be said for the word and sentence methods, it is really by
the phonic method that the child becomes independent of the teacher.”
In 1920 and 1921 Freeman and Gray respectively presented well-studied
cases of individual pupils. Freeman’s case was that of a girl 9 years
and 6 months old, in the fourth grade of the University Elementary
School, at Chicago. General intelligence was “better than average,” the
exact IQ not being stated. The child’s father and paternal aunt had also
had marked difficulty in reading. Both parents were above average in
social-economic status, and hence probably also in intelligence. An
oculist had made a diagnosis of word blindness, with a very discouraging
prognosis for learning to read.
As a result of careful psychological analysis, it was decided that there
was no deficiency of general intelligence, and no disorder of vision or
of visual perception. There was no motor deficiency or general language
disturbance. “The defect, therefore, must be a highly specialized one,”
apparently consisting in lack of aptitude for associating visual symbols
with prescribed sounds.
Phonetic drill had already been carried to excess in efforts to teach
this child. She centered all her attention upon “sounding” the words as
units, with no grasp of thought units. Devices to extend recognition
were instituted. Passages were broken up into sentences, the individual
sentences being typed separately on slips of paper. A card was placed
upon the page and moved forward as fast as the child could read.
Flash-card work was undertaken. Printed directions were given, which the
child followed out by appropriate action. Practice in reading
arithmetical problems was prescribed, where it was necessary to read
exactly every item. Parallel with instruction in reading there was
instruction in spelling and writing. Deficiency in spelling was extreme.
From early in October to late in December, these drills were given. The
improvement shown on tests of reading ability was very marked after this
brief interval. There was no doubt that the child could learn to read,
and the prospect of return to the grade normal for her age seemed very
good.
Gray’s case was that of a fourth grade boy, aged 10 years and 4 months
when the study began. This boy had been obliged to discontinue some of
his school work, because of inability to read fluently and effectively.
His parents were unusually intelligent, and his sister read well and
much.
The boy was normal physically, active and robust. At the age of 4 years,
he began to wear glasses to correct astigmatism and myopia, and was
constantly under the advice of an expert oculist.
There was a very irregular school history, with “skipping” in grades 1,
2, and 3. General intelligence was slightly better than average, as
taken by the Stanford-Binet. Ability was rated good in all phases of
school work not requiring reading. On all tests of reading ability he
made very low scores. Comprehension was good for material read to him.
It was seen that he recognized words individually, that his
eye-movements were faulty, and that the mechanics of reading had not
been rendered automatic. Special practice exercises were prescribed in
recognition of words, in control of eye-movement, and in grouping words
in thought units. Very marked improvement followed upon this individual
instruction, for one hour a day, over a period of two months.
A careful analysis, followed up by experimental teaching, has been
published by Fernald and Keller. Seven non-readers of normal vision, and
of IQ’s ranging from 94 to 130, were studied. All learned to read, under
special instruction. The method of teaching stressed tracing, writing,
and pronouncing the words. That is, the kinæsthetic elements in reading
were emphasized.
Fernald and Keller believe that these children had not learned reading,
because ordinary methods of teaching neglect the “kinæsthetic links.”
Strong motor tendencies were seen in the children, even after they had
learned to read fluently. It must be said that this study is one of the
most satisfactory so far presented, because it gives precise
quantitative measurements, and because the psychological analyses were
so well checked up by experimental teaching.
Gates followed up the poorest readers, all of average or superior
general intelligence, in the Scarborough School, with special training
in the visual perception of words, with good results in every case but
one.
Comment upon the implication of these studies will be postponed until we
have considered certain further contributions to the subject, for
example Burt’s observations on neurotics.
VI. NERVOUS INSTABILITY AND SPECIAL DEFECT IN READING
Burt has pointed out what every psychologist who examines school
children can confirm, that neurotic children are often deficient in
reading, though they may be intelligent. This follows from the
psychology of the mechanics of reading. Mastery of these mechanics calls
for an ordinary degree of coöperation, adherence to definite directions,
power of sustained effort, and fidelity to bare facts. Neurotics are
those who are characteristically inferior in these essential qualities,
among others. Where impulsive response, negativistic attitude,
flightiness, and illusion cause failure, neurotic children fail. Hence
many of them never learn to read, except by individual teaching.
Under this category, we may consider, also, speech defectives, for
speech defects are often symptomatic of nervous instability. Children
who stammer or lisp may “turn against” reading, because of the ignominy
they fear, in oral reading before their mates. A child who displays a
speech defect in oral reading should, for humane reasons, be excused
from such reading before the class.
General nervous instability naturally tends to failure in any school
subject, which demands the qualities of character mentioned above as
essential to the mastery of reading. Thus nervous, but intelligent,
children may be deficient in reading, spelling, and arithmetic, “the
tool subjects,” while making satisfactory progress in “the subject
matter courses,” such as history, nature study, or geography, where
precise connections in prescribed sequences of relationships need not be
formed, in order to succeed.
Nervous instability may be found in combination with any degree of IQ,
apparently, from dullest to brightest. The relation between them is not
certainly known, though there is now considerable indication that the
correlation between stability and intellect will be found to be positive
and high (but not perfect). This would mean that there are very probably
more ill-balanced children among the stupid than elsewhere in the
distribution of IQ. That organic quality, which shows itself in superior
intelligence, robustness, and longevity, also shows itself in nervous
stability, more likely than not.
A nervous child, who is also very stupid, will, of course, learn under
individual instruction only what his limited intelligence will permit.
The methods of mental measurement enable us to differentiate between the
nervous child who can learn much, and the nervous child who can learn
very little, under individual training.
VII. A FOUR-YEAR STUDY OF A NON-READER
From February, 1918, to May, 1922, the present writer studied and taught
a non-reader, a schoolboy.
X was brought to the Psychological Laboratory at Teachers College, in
February, 1918, by his mother. The complaint was that the child could
not learn to read, and on this account he had been suggested by his
teachers for the ungraded class, in which feeble-minded children are
taught. His mother, an intelligent woman, could scarcely believe X to be
feeble-minded, because he “is very quick about things around home, is
keen and capable about doing errands for money, and though he cannot
read, gets around the city by himself.” She felt, however, that a boy
who after over six years of instruction still remained totally
illiterate must require special advice of some kind.
Accordingly, when the suggestion in reference to the ungraded class was
made, the mother took X to the Neurological Institute, where an
examination was made, in the Psychological Laboratory. The report was
then given that the child was not a proper pupil for such a class, and
the matter was referred to Teachers College.
X was born on September 23, 1906. He was therefore 11 years and 5 months
old when he was first seen by the present writer. His school history
showed that he started to school in kindergarten at the age of 5 years,
and went into the first grade at 6 years. He had been “left back” in
nearly every class, after the study of reading began. He spent three
terms in 1A; one term in 1B; two terms in 2A; two terms in 2B; two terms
in 3A; and was, when first examined, repeating 3B. In 3B he was reported
as “deficient in everything except conduct.” In conduct he was rated
always as B+ or A. The teachers said they could not teach him.
When X was about 7 years old, the matter of his difficulties was first
taken up, with the family physician, who said he would “grow out of it
and be all right.” As years passed, and the child continued to be
untaught, the physician finally advised the visit to the Neurological
Institute.
The teacher’s opinion was that the boy must be feeble-minded, since five
different teachers had tried to instruct him in reading and spelling,
yet he had failed to read or spell any word, except his name. He could
recognize his name among other words, and could _draw_ it fairly well,
much as he would draw a house or tree. He could not _spell_ his name.
Vision and audition had been tested at the Manhattan Eye and Ear
Infirmary, and the report was that no significant defect of eye or ear
existed. Motor tests showed the boy to be right-handed, so that
interference in word-management, possibly due to change in “handedness,”
was eliminated.
The developmental history of X as an organism reveals nothing atypical,
except defects of speech and difficulty in reading. He was born
normally, walked and talked before he was two years old, and was normal
in dentition. But he did not _talk plainly_ till he was about 6 years
old. He had a speech defect, stuttered, and could not say “l”.
His medical history shows that he had whooping cough as a baby; that
tonsils and adenoids were removed at the age of 5 years; that he had an
abscess in the left ear at the age of 4 years, which lasted about two
weeks, but did not impair hearing; that he had diphtheria at the age of
11 years, a bad case, followed by temporary paralysis of the soft
palate; that he had never had any convulsion or loss of consciousness;
that he had never had chorea, or other disease of the nervous system.
Physically he was well developed, measurements on February 14, 1918,
being as follows: Standing height, 59.8 inches; sitting height, 29.6
inches; weight (with ordinary clothing on), 86¼ pounds; cranial
circumference, 21.2 inches; right grip (Smedley), 20 Kg.; left grip, 18
Kg.; lung capacity (wet spirometer), 130 cubic inches.
As for family history, X is the youngest of four siblings, all others of
whom learned without difficulty to read and spell. His sister graduated
from high school with a state scholarship, went through college, and is
now a teacher in a high school. An older brother graduated from the
elementary school at 14 years, in spite of the fact that he missed two
semesters through illness. He also had a speech defect “about the same
as X,” but outgrew it. Another brother had reached 8B by the time he was
13 years old. Of thirteen cousins attending school, only one had ever
been “left back.”
The mother had graduated at the usual age from common school. The father
had been troubled in boyhood by a speech defect, which disappeared. “He
could not say certain words and letters.” On this account he did not
like school. As an adult he reads the newspapers, and “can write a
straight letter.”
X had never known any language other than English, so that interference
of habit from other languages was ruled out. No attempt had been made to
teach him reading at home, until after the reports of his disability
began to be made from the school.
General intelligence was measured by the Stanford-Binet Scale, with a
resulting score of 9 years 9 months mental age, and IQ 85. It was thus
seen that general intelligence was quite sufficient for learning to
read. From general intelligence of this degree, in a child under
ordinary instruction for six years, one would usually be justified in
predicting close to a fourth grade score on tests of reading.
In this case, however, scores of zero were yielded on all tests of
ability to read. No word or letter on any scale could be read. There
was, therefore, no question of making an analysis of the child’s
difficulty through the use of such tests, since all scores were
uniformly zero.
X was anxious to learn, and was becoming self-conscious because of his
failure to go ahead. At this time no speech defect was noted by the
examiner, and it was supposed to have been “outgrown.” He could copy
writing, with some errors, and, as seemed strange, could transpose print
into writing, though slowly and with errors.
Since sensory capacity was normal, general intelligence was developed
well beyond the minimum at which reading can be taught, and character
traits, such as promptness, reliability, and fidelity to duty, were
reported to be better than average, it was decided to undertake to teach
the child to read. Upon being asked whether he could travel alone from
his school in Brooklyn to the office at Teachers College, both he and
his mother replied without hesitation in the affirmative, “for he has
ways of finding out where he is, without reading.”
Accordingly, from February to June, 1918, X came three times a week to
Teachers College, and received special instruction in reading and
spelling from Miss Sara Fisk, at that time a graduate student in the
Department of Educational Psychology. After some experimentation with
the attempt to teach by the word and sentence as units, Miss Fisk
decided to begin by teaching first the alphabet, and to proceed with the
letter as the unit. X thus learned to read, by spelling out the letters,
and “sounding” them as he went. In this way, by the first of June, 1918,
he knew and could sound and could write every letter of the alphabet,
but could not write the capitals; and he had a reading vocabulary of
eighty simple monosyllables. He was advised to study through the summer
vacation, if he could.
In October, 1918, X returned to the College, seeking instruction, but
Miss Fisk had discontinued her studies, and no teacher was available at
the moment. In March, 1919, X’s mother reported that he had “done
nothing” in reading and spelling at school, though he was not deficient
in geography or arithmetic, and asked for assistance. Upon this report,
X was invited to come for further instruction, which was given
thereafter by the present writer.
The method previously undertaken was continued. The _Riverside Primer_
was mastered, between March and June of 1919. Each new word was learned
by spelling aloud and sounding. After several repetitions of this
process, a new word would be assimilated into the vocabulary which could
be read at sight, with the word as the unit of perception. In June of
1919, X could read any word in the _Riverside Primer_, either at sight
or by spelling, and could write without error every letter of the
alphabet, both small letters and capitals. He could also read simple
matter which interested him in daily life, such as the weather reports,
from newspapers.
From October, 1919, to June, 1920, X came for one hour each week, to be
instructed. The _Riverside First Reader_ was studied through. He made
steady progress, as may best be seen from the repeated measurements on
Trabue’s “Language Scale A,” which are illustrated in Figure 6 (page
77).
In September, 1920, X entered grade 5B, being 14 years of age, three
years retarded in school status, by the New York City age-grade norms.
His speech defect was again noticeable. All through this year, till
June, 1921, he came for one hour each week to take instruction in
reading and spelling. The series of Riverside readers was now abandoned,
in favor of the history and other books used regularly in grade 5B.
Toward the end of that school year, some reading was also done from
boys’ stories, in which X had spontaneously become interested during the
summer of 1920.
From October, 1921, to May, 1922, stories written for boys were used as
material for the reading lesson. X brought with him whatever book he
happened to be reading at the moment, and the lesson was taken from it.
By this time X had become so fond of silent reading as a pastime that
several difficulties in oral reading, not previously present, developed.
One of these was the tendency to guess at new words, without waiting to
perceive them accurately, in order to get on with the story. Another was
the tendency to leave out all well known and unimportant monosyllables,
such as “and,” “the,” “but,” “of,” “who,” and so forth. These words he
knew unerringly when he could be induced to look at them, but in silent
reading he had evidently formed the habit of neglecting them altogether.
These faults were corrected by practice in reading backwards, which
offers no incentive to skip words.
Samples of X’s tests in reading are reproduced in Figures 6, 7, and 8,
in order that an accurate idea may be conveyed of his growth in power to
gain meaning from the printed page.
X’s account of a week’s reading, reproduced in Figure 9 (page 86), gives
an idea of the amount of outside reading regularly done, and at the same
time an idea of proficiency in writing and spelling words, attained in
January, 1922.
A partial list of books read for pleasure, on his own initiative by X,
between December, 1921, and May, 1922, gives an idea of the practice he
had in silent reading outside of formal instruction. This is presented
on page 85, as follows.
[Illustration:
FIG. 6—Part 1.
The five parts of Figure 6 show how X improved as measured by Trabue’s
“Language Scale A,” from Feb., 1918, to Dec., 1921.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 6—Part 2.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 6—Part 3.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 6—Part 4.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 6—Part 5.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 7—Part 1.
The two parts of Figure 7 show X’s improvement in silent reading, from
April 15, 1921, to Dec. 2, 1921, as measured by Thorndike-McCall
“Reading Scale,” Form 1.
(On the latter date, X answered 23 questions correctly, scoring 52
points, which is the norm for the end of grade 6B.)
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 7—Part 2.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 8.—Showing X’s ability to get meaning from printed words, in May,
1922, as tested by Haggerty’s “Sigma 1,” for grades 1 to 3. This
does not represent X’s maximum ability, but is presented as a sample
of his work on this scale.
]
_Two Young Patriots._ E. T. Tomlinson.
_Ralph on the Overland Express._ Allen Chapman.
_Scouts of Stonewall._ J. A. Altsheler.
_Army Boys on the Firing Line._ Homer Randall.
_Among the Malays._ G. A. Henty.
_Ralph in the Rocky Mountains._ Allen Chapman.
_The Outdoor Chums at Cabin Point._ Quincey Allen.
_Huckleberry Finn._ Mark Twain.
_Andy at Yale._ Roy E. Stokes.
_Adventures of Sherlock Holmes._ Conan Doyle.
Repeated mental tests of X resulted as follows:
Stanford-Binet│Feb. 14, 1918. M. A. 9–9. IQ 85.[11]
„ │Dec. 5, 1919. M. A. 11–3. IQ 85.
„ │Jan. 6, 1922. M. A. 12–7. IQ 82.
Pintner’s “Scale of Performance Tests.” Dec. 26, 1919. Median M. A.
11–0.
Healy’s “Pictorial Completion No. I.” 446 points. (11-year
performance). Dec. 26, 1919.
Healy’s “Pictorial Completion No. II.” 55 points. Dec. 26, 1919.
Stenquist “Mechanical Tests,” Series I. Feb. 3, 1922. Raw Score, 54
points. T score, 61.
It is of interest to note that a scale like Stanford-Binet, against
which has been repeatedly brought the _a priori_ objection that it
depends on verbal acquirement, is capable of differentiating a
non-reader from the feeble-minded. It is also interesting that the
Pintner “Scale of Performance Tests,” which does not include ability to
read at all, gives almost exactly the same result as the Stanford-Binet,
in this case.
[Illustration:
FIG. 9.—Showing an account written by X of his week’s reading.
]
X is a boy of superior character. He never missed an appointment with
his instructor, and was never tardy except once, unavoidably. He gave up
pleasures, such as trying out for baseball, in order to learn reading.
When asked why he did so, he replied that “You most probably can’t get a
living playing baseball, but you can get a better living if you can
read.” These qualities of perseverance and fidelity to duty were
undoubtedly very important factors in such success as was achieved.
Why did X not learn to read as children of his general character and
endowment usually do, in the ordinary course of schooling? After four
years of studying and teaching him, the present writer cannot give a
definite answer to this question. He was finally taught to read by a
method in which the letter is the unit of perception, and in which words
are read in the first place by spelling them aloud. This is not the
method used in the schools where X attended, nor in any modern school.
Still, the possibility of teaching him by some method other than that
which succeeded, has not been excluded. It is even possible that he
might have learned to read by the very method used in the schools, under
individual instruction, where each habit can be scrutinized as it is
being formed. In a class of forty or fifty children, each demanding
attention, a teacher cannot succeed with an individual pupil, by any
method, as well as with that pupil alone, by that same method.
It was observed throughout the teaching of X that he constantly made
appeal to his ear. He could always grasp a difficult word more easily by
hearing it spelled aloud, than he could by seeing it. In order to obtain
some quantitative statement of the extent to which auditory perception
showed an advantage over visual perception in his case, the following
experiment was tried.
In the spring of 1922, on four successive weekly appointments, 27
paragraphs, comprising 4131 words, were read by X, both (1) _through the
ear_, the teacher spelling the words, and X pronouncing them without
seeing them, and (2) _through the eye_, X seeing and saying the words,
in the usual way. The order of these procedures was reversed for
alternating paragraphs, so that no advantage to either method of
perception would accrue from practice.
Errors are of two kinds—misreadings and omissions. Omissions in sight
reading were not counted, since, according to the method whereby the
teacher spelled successive words to X, no omissions were possible.
Misreadings only were counted. In reading these paragraphs, X made 162
errors through the eye, and but 57 errors through the ear, in perceiving
the same words.
This great reduction in error through auditory channels might, however,
be due to the fact that by that method only one word was presented at a
time, whereas in the ordinary visual reading the whole page of words was
presented, acting as a distraction. In order to check this possible
error in interpretation, one hundred isolated words were presented to
the eye and to the ear, reversing the procedure alternately for every
ten words. The ratio of error was nearly the same as in the first
experiment. X can now, in fact, pronounce almost any puzzling word in
ordinary reading matter, such as is found in newspapers, by spelling it
aloud.
It seems reasonable, therefore, to infer that there are certain specific
attributes of the auditory elements in reading, which were especially
important for education, in this boy’s case, and which were not much
utilized by the method of teaching employed. By teaching him the letter,
with its various possible sounds, as the unit of perception, we supplied
him with a tool which enables him to construct words for himself,
through the channels which are easiest for him. This has not rendered
him fluent, but it has rendered him literate. Altogether, he had from us
about a hundred and fifty hours of special instruction. The present
writer believes that with several times as much practice as X has had,
he will become a reasonably fluent sight reader, dropping out the
spelling almost entirely.
This case is very much like those referred to by Hinshelwood, and it is
interesting that the teachers adopted, after trial and error, the same
method adopted by Hinshelwood, without being familiar at that time with
Hinshelwood’s contribution.
Inasmuch as a certain practical interest attaches to the final outcome
of educational adjustment in such cases, it may be stated that X at the
age of sixteen years will leave the elementary school, having completed
grade 6B. He will then seek admission to a trade school, maintained by
one of the great industries.
VIII. SUMMARY OF STUDIES OF NON-READERS
We see, therefore, that non-readers, of general intelligence much above
the minimum level required for reading, do learn to read when special
training is given. This training may stress phonics (Schmitt), it may
stress the motor and kinæsthetic avenues of approach (Fernald and
Keller), or it may stress visual perception (Gates). It may or may not
proceed by use of the old “alphabet” method (Hinshelwood).
What is the interpretation of the facts reported? Does it not seem
certain that _general intelligence_ is, as indicated by the high
coefficients of correlation obtained between reading and intelligence,
the chief consideration, in predicting whether or not a child will learn
to read? Would it not appear that children of adequate general
intelligence, and of normal sensory capacity, learn to read when given
intensive training, whatever avenue of approach may be particularly
stressed?
It is not credible that all the non-readers found by Schmitt in Chicago,
chanced to have a kind of disability approachable by phonics, and in no
other way; that those discovered by Fernald and Keller in California
were so constituted that they could be approached through motor
exercises, and not otherwise; that Gates’ cases in the Scarborough
School all happened to be susceptible to training through visual
methods, and through no others. In fact, no investigator has established
his or her method as the only method of successful approach to
particular cases, by excluding other methods through experimental
teaching.
For non-readers such as have been described under the criteria laid down
by the investigators quoted, it seems highly probable that the best
method would be that wherein all the avenues of approach are fully
utilized. Such a method would combine all the special exercises devised
by the various investigators, in a proportion and sequence, which should
be determined upon as optimum by experimental teaching.
Such a method, when experimentally established, would be most suitable
for all children—not for the extreme of the distribution exclusively.
Here, as in so many questions of pedagogy, all children might profit
from our study of the extreme cases, who differ from the typical in
degree only.
Children of normal sensory capacity, and of IQ average or superior,
typically learn to read passably well, without approach through all the
possible avenues, and without special attention on the part of the
teacher to all the elements involved. A few such children require
intensive teaching in order “to pass” in reading, because of specific
idiosyncrasies. If the methods that succeed with the extreme cases were
applied to the typical class, perhaps the children might learn to read,
not “passably,” but very well. There might be a rise of ten points in
norms for reading ability throughout the grades. Such perfection of
method might or might not eliminate entirely the necessity for
individual teaching of special cases. Probably it would not, in classes
as large as those seen in most of our public schools to-day.
IX. CASES OF SPECIAL ABILITY IN READING
It is characteristic throughout of educational psychology, that much
more is known concerning the unable than is known concerning the able.
The welfare of the strong is neglected by science and by education. It
follows that the bibliographies dealing with the deficient, the sick,
and the erring are very long, while those dealing with the gifted, the
extremely healthy, and the unusually upright are very brief. Modern
society gives a very disproportionate amount of time, money, and
sympathy to its least profitable members.
The few cases of extreme special forwardness in reading, which are
available for reference, are of children who were probably of very high
IQ. Most of them were avowedly so. Terman has supplied numerous
instances of children who learned to read in the third or fourth year of
life, all of them of more than 130 IQ. Francis Galton, who could read
fluently when he was 4 years old, was probably of IQ near 200, as has
been gleaned from other biographical evidence. Ability to read is in
such cases not special.
In 1910, the case of Otto Pöhler was reported. He was a child in
Braunschweig, who could read German and Latin at the age of 1 year and 9
months, and also could read German numerals. The subsequent history of
this infant shows that at the age of 15 years, he was an _Obersekunder_
in the _gymnasium_, and that at 17, he was within one and a half years
of the University. It is certain, therefore, that general intelligence
was superior, but the degree of superiority cannot be guessed, except
within wide limits.
It seems probable that the ability to read was somewhat special, in the
sense that it exceeded the expectations from IQ. In order to read
fluently before the second birthday, a child’s IQ would have to approach
300, to coincide with expectations. From what we know at present of the
limits of IQ, it would be impossible for any child to stand at 300 IQ.
The case of Otto Pöhler is, therefore, probably one of especially great
ability to read, in a child of generally superior endowment.
A similar case is that of Martha, communicated anonymously by her
father, through Terman. Martha was seen by Terman at the age of 2 years,
when she read fluently from an ordinary primer. The method and amount of
instruction which led to this astonishing result, are set forth in the
account. Expectation from reading ability alone would place Martha’s IQ
at something near 300, for she read what a typical child of 6 years can
read. Later Terman tested the general intelligence of this child, and
obtained a rating of 150 IQ.
Thus Martha’s phenomenal ability to read must be considered special, in
the sense that IQ fell far short of expectation therefrom.
A year ago a child was brought to the present writer for mental
examination, because he could read newspapers fluently at the age of 4
years. Upon being measured for speed and accuracy in oral reading, he
fell at the 10-year norms (fifth grade). An IQ of over 200 would be
inferred from this, assuming the ability in mechanics of reading to be
in no way special. As a matter of fact, IQ fell at 142. Scores for
comprehension of reading fell at 7 years (second grade norms),
corresponding with general intelligence.
Upon retests this year, the scores were as follows: mechanics of reading
English (speed and accuracy), fifth grade norm; comprehension in
reading, high third grade norm; mental age, 8 years 6 months; IQ 147.
This child’s ability to read is special, though general ability in
mental work is very superior, too.
These are all cases of generally gifted children, where mastery in the
mechanics of reading is, however, in each case much beyond performance
in other respects. Cases where test scores have been presented to show
special discrepancies in reading, in children of very inferior IQ, have
been reported by White, in collaboration with Poull, from the
psychological laboratory of the institution for feeble-minded children,
in New York City. The children in the school who could read were
canvassed, and those who could not read were similarly canvassed, until
two groups of five each were selected, all members being above six years
mental age, where reading can typically be learned. The two groups
compared as follows in age, general ability, and schooling.
M. A. IQ Age Years at School
Reading Group 6—8 69 9—8 2.2
Non-reading „ 7—10 68 11—8 4.8
It is thus seen that the non-readers have every advantage, being one
year higher in mental level, having had a double amount of schooling,
and being of the same IQ[12] as the readers. The investigators then had
before them two groups of generally inferior children, of which the
members of one had ability to learn reading, not possessed by members of
the other.
Tests based on investigations of the psychology of reading were then
given. These were for auditory and visual acuity, ability to perceive
and reproduce articulate sounds, ability to cross out A’s and to check
numbers, to attend to several impressions instantly, and to associate
numbers and other symbols through the eye and through the ear. No
significant differences in group scores were found, except in the last
tests mentioned—those of forming associations between symbols. Here the
readers made reliably higher scores than did the non-readers.
The investigators did not measure the reading ability of their subjects,
but selected the children from the school reports, as to “reading” and
“not reading.” The precise extent of specialized discrepancy between
general intelligence and reading ability among the children cannot,
therefore, be calculated. However, it may be inferred that two of these
children had some degree of special ability. One of these, IQ 67, mental
age, 6 years 7 months, is described as the best reader in the group, and
it is said of her that she “reads well.” Another, IQ 79, mental age, 6
years 7 months, is said to “read very well,” being then in the second
year of attendance on school.
A few cases of superior ability to read, occurring in combination with
low IQ, have also been reported by Bronner.
X. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LITERACY
Reflection will show at once the great importance of reading for school
progress, since our schools are virtually reading schools. Almost no
subjects included in the curriculum can be learned without mastery of
reading. Also the importance of literacy for life in modern times can
scarcely be overstated. Those who learn to read easily at an early age
thus have a natural advantage; while those of good intelligence, who
have difficulty, should be assisted in every way to learn.
There are certainly very few children of IQ over 100, with normal eyes
and ears, who do not learn with ease to read. A census would doubtless
show that most cases of special disability in this respect lie between
50 and 100 IQ, that is, in the lower half of the distribution for
general intelligence. Fildes, who measured the general intelligence of
twenty-six non-readers, whom she studied, found them distributed as
follows, with respect to IQ (Stanford-Binet):
IQ 111 1 child
IQ 82–88 4 children
IQ 70–79 8 children
IQ 50–69 13 children
It may be argued that children who cannot read necessarily tend to fall
low on Stanford-Binet, because the tests composing the scale are
weighted against non-readers. The validity of this argument is doubtful,
in view of the fact that but four out of seventy-four tests (not
including alternates, of which none require reading) directly involve
ability to read or spell. As a matter of fact, Fildes found no
correlation among her twenty-six subjects, between IQ and ability to
read, as measured by reading tests. “Two of the worst readers were the
least intelligent and most intelligent boys. The three worst cases
examined, _i.e._, cases with no reading power at all, had intelligence
quotients of 61, 79, and 78 respectively. Many defective boys with such
high intelligence quotients read quite well.”[13]
Non-readers who fall between 80 and 100 IQ are especially worthy of
attention, since they have sufficient general intelligence to make
considerable use of reading, and to suffer a special handicap from
illiteracy.
It may be confidently stated, as a result of the research of the past
five years, that all children of average or better than average general
intelligence are capable of literacy; and that very early use of and
interest in reading are strongly symptomatic of general superiority in
selective thinking. From these facts we may hark back to the conclusion
of the physiological psychologists, Ladd and Woodworth: “Indeed, the
entire cerebrum would seem to be, of necessity, involved in man’s
linguistic attainments and uses.” Mastery of language is, as Binet
concluded, one of the most reliable indications of competence in
general.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, C. I., and MERTON, E.—“Remedial Work in Silent Reading”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1920.
ANDERSON, C. I., and MERTON, E.—“Remedial Work in Reading”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1920.
BERKAU, O.—“Otto Pöhler, das frühlesende Braunschweiger Kind”;
_Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung_, 1910.
BERKOWITZ, I. H.—_The Eyesight of School Children_; U. S. Bureau of
Education Bulletin, 1919, No. 65.
BRONNER, A. F.—_The Psychology of Special Abilities and Disabilities_;
The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Boston, 1917.
BURT, C.—“Unstable Children”; _Child Study_, 1917.
BUSWELL, G. T.—“An Experimental Study of the Eye-Voice Span in
Reading”; _Supplementary Educational Monographs_, University of
Chicago, 1920.
CLEMESHA, I. C.—“Congenital Word Blindness”; _Journal of Ophthalmology
and Otolaryngology_, 1915.
FERNALD, G. M., and KELLER, H.—“The Effect of Kinæsthetic Factors in
the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non-Readers”;
_Journal of Educational Research_, 1921.
FILDES, L. G.—“A Psychological Inquiry into the Nature of the
Condition Known as Congenital Word Blindness”; _Brain_, 1921.
FREEMAN, F. N.—“Clinical Study as a Method in Experimental Education”;
_Journal of Applied Psychology_, 1920.
GATES, A. I.—_The Psychology of Reading and Spelling, with Special
Reference to Disability_; Teachers College, Columbia University,
1922.
GRAY, W. S.—“The Diagnostic Study of an Individual Case in Reading”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1921.
GRAY, W. S.—“Remedial Cases in Reading: Their Diagnosis and
Treatment”; _Supplementary Educational Monographs_, University of
Chicago, 1922.
HINSHELWOOD, J.—_Congenital Word Blindness_; Lewis and Co., London,
1917.
KING, I.—“A Comparison of Slow and Rapid Readers”; _School and
Society_, 1916.
MORGAN, W. P.—“Congenital Word Blindness”; _British Medical Journal_,
1896.
O’BRIEN, J. A.—_Silent Reading._ The Macmillan Company, New York,
1921.
RANSCHBURG, P.—_Die Leseschwäche (Legasthenie) der Schulkinder im
Lichte des Experiments_; Julius Springer, Berlin, 1916.
SCHMITT, C.—“Developmental Alexia” and “Congenital Word Blindness or
Inability to Learn to Read”; _Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
SCHRÖCK, G.—“Über kongenitale Wortblindheit”; _Klinische Monatsblätter
für Augenheilkunde_, 1915.
TERMAN, L. M.—“An Experiment in Infant Education”; _Journal of Applied
Psychology_, 1919.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“The Understanding of Sentences: A Study of Errors in
Reading”; _Elementary School Journal_, 1917.
UHL, W. L.—“The Use of the Results of Reading Tests as Bases for
Planning Remedial Work”; _Elementary School Journal_, 1916.
WHITE, A., and POULL, L. E.—_Reading Ability and Disability of
Subnormal Children_; Department of Public Welfare, New York, 1921.
CHAPTER V
SPELLING
I. COHERENCE AMONG LINGUISTIC FUNCTIONS
According to Meumann, the whole field of language is a unit,
psychologically considered. Reading, spelling, composition, the learning
of foreign languages should thus be intimately interconnected for a
given individual. He who learns one readily, should also readily learn
the others, without notable exception.
This view of the close coherence among linguistic functions is borne
out, also, by the work of Gates, already cited, in which he found high
positive correlations among perceptual tests which use words as
materials.
We must notice, nevertheless, that the correlations fall considerably
short of unity. Illustrative cases show that occasionally children are
found who can read well, but cannot spell legibly, though the present
writer has not seen cases of the opposite condition, and has not found
them reported in the literature.
Special defect in spelling will, therefore, be given separate
consideration, though it must be recognized that abilities in spelling
and reading are usually closely associated.
II. ANALYSIS OF LEARNING TO SPELL
It is virtually impossible for an educated adult, whose spelling habits
have long ago become automatic, to reconstruct from introspection the
long, difficult, and complex processes through which he passed in
learning to communicate by means of correctly spelled words. Such an
adult may gain some idea of what is involved in the spelling process by
confronting himself with the task of learning to spell and write words
upside down and backwards, but even so the experience of the child is
not duplicated.
Analysis teaches us that this aspect of linguistic attainment ordinarily
involves the formation of a series of connections approximately as
follows:
(1) An object, act, quality, or relation is “bound” to a certain sound,
which has often been repeated while the object is pointed at, the act
performed, and so forth. In order that the connection may become
definitely established, it is necessary (_a_) that the individual should
be able to identify for himself the object, act, quality, or relation,
and (_b_) that he should be able to recollect the particular vocal
sounds which have been associated therewith. When this is accomplished,
the sound has become a word.
(2) The sound (word) becomes “bound” with performance of the very
complex muscular act necessary for articulating it.
(3) When school age is reached, certain printed and written symbols,
arbitrarily chosen, visually representing sounds, become “bound” (_a_)
with the recognized objects, acts, and so forth, and (_b_) with their
vocal representatives, so that when the symbols are presented to sight,
the word can be uttered by the perceiving individual. This is what we
should call ability “to read” the word.
(4) The separate elements of the symbols (letters) become associated
with each other in the proper sequence, and have the effect of calling
each other up to consciousness in the prescribed order. When this has
taken place we say that the individual can _spell orally_.
(5) The child by a slow, voluntary process “binds” the visual perception
of the separate letters with the muscular movements of arm, hand, and
fingers necessary to _copy_ the word.
(6) The child “binds” the representatives in consciousness of the visual
symbols with the motor responses necessary to produce the written word
spontaneously, at pleasure.
This analysis is probably not exhaustive, but it provides a foundation
on which to construct an understanding of poor spellers. Obviously, poor
spelling may be due to one or another of quite different defects, or to
a combination of several defects. In an ability so complex there is
opportunity for the occurrence of a great variety of deficiencies. In
any particular case the underlying cause can be discovered only by means
of a psychological examination covering the various processes involved.
III. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF POOR SPELLERS[14]
Poor spelling, like poor reading, may be due to _sensory defects_,
either of the ear or of the eye. If sounds are indistinct, or if visual
stimuli are vague or distorted, the prescribed connections involving
these elements will be difficult to form. Thus tests of auditory and
visual acuity must be given. If any sensory defect is revealed, it
should be corrected, if it is corrigible.
The degree of _general intelligence_ must be determined. Failure to
learn to spell is frequently symptomatic of general incompetence, though
not so frequently as in the case of reading. The correlation
coefficients cluster around .50 only, in the case of spelling and
general intelligence. Quite a number of children will be found, whose
achievement in spelling shows marked discrepancy with general capacity.
Spelling is more mechanical than reading, so that the stupid may more
easily master it by tireless drill, while the intelligent are not likely
to derive so much pleasure from it or to practice it so much.
The connections which are described in our analysis under (2) may be
inadequately or incorrectly developed. This would be _faulty
pronunciation_. This is undoubtedly a very prolific cause of poor
spelling. Such errors as “a-f-t-e-r-w-o-o-d-s” for “afterwards,”
“w-h-e-n-t” for “went,” “p-r-e-h-a-p-s” for “perhaps,” will serve to
illustrate this point. In observations on poor spellers, such errors are
found by the score, and it is discovered that the words are pronounced
as spelled. Thus the poor speller should be tested for the
_pronunciation_ of the words which he misspells. It may be that drill in
correct pronunciation is what is needed, in order to improve his
spelling.
Faulty pronunciation may itself be due to various causes. In the
majority of cases it doubtless arises from _false auditory perception_,
as in such misspellings as “hares breath” for “hair’s breadth,” and
“Mail Brothers” for “Mayo Brothers.” In other cases it arises from
_inability to articulate properly_, as with children who stammer or
lisp, or have nasal obstructions.
It may be that a pupil’s weakness lies in the formation of connections,
which we have noted in our analysis under (3). The formation of these
connections involves _visual perception_, habits of interpretation
through the eye, which have been found to be of first rate importance in
spelling. We may refer back to the discussion of the perceptual factors
in reading. In spelling, also, it has been discovered that error is not
distributed at random, but follows certain laws. For instance, there is
a constant tendency to shorten, rather than to lengthen words in
misspelling them. The influence of any letter over error varies greatly
with the position of the letter in the word. The last halves of
misspelled words show many more errors than are found in first halves.
From these and other facts it is apparent that failures in visual
perception contribute to the difficulties of poor spellers. In order to
determine whether such is the case with any particular child, it will be
necessary to make an analysis of his work, to see whether the
distribution of his errors reveals such perceptual weakness. If a child
can spell the first halves of words correctly, but does not spell the
last halves, or if he learns to spell the upper halves of words
correctly, but cannot spell the lower halves of them, the remedy is to
bring about readjustments of attention, whereby he will _look at_ those
portions of words, which formerly he failed, unconsciously, to see.
Poor spelling may be due to sheer _failure to remember_—_failure to
retain_ impressions which were originally clearly and correctly
perceived. This may mean simply that the child requires unusually
numerous repetitions before he can form the connections described under
(4) in our analysis; or it may be that his memory span is abnormally
brief, and that he cannot easily associate more than three or four
elements together as a unitary sequence. Tests of memory span for
various kinds of materials should be instituted, in order to gain light
on this point. If it appears that his performance is decidedly below the
normal for his age, especially when the material is letters, it may be
concluded that too brief memory span is probably playing a part in his
difficulties. This could be checked up further by an analysis of his
spellings, to see to what extent he spells short words correctly, but
misspells longer words. Emphasis upon syllabication, prefixes, suffixes,
and other short units should be helpful. The child might be able to
remember three syllables of three letters each, but unable to retain,
with the same amount of practice, one word of nine letters.
Psychologically, these two tasks are different.
Smedley suggested years ago that there might be a “rational element” in
spelling, whereby _knowledge of the meaning_ of words would contribute
to the correct spelling of them, in and of itself. Connections involving
meaning are considered in our analysis under (1). Children produce an
especially great proportion of error in spelling words which have no
meaning for them. Hence it is of interest to test the child for
knowledge of the meaning of words which he misspells. It is necessary to
find out whether the words which confuse him are in his vocabulary.
_Motor awkwardness and incoördination_ may contribute to poor spelling.
Here are involved the connections discussed by us under (5) and (6). In
written spelling (with which education is chiefly concerned), it is
necessary not only to know what symbols are required, but to execute
them successfully with arm, hand, and fingers. Here we must have
recourse to motor tests, for steadiness, coördination, and speed of
voluntary movement. Occasionally one finds a child who does much better
at oral spelling than he does at written spelling. In such cases,
improvement in handwriting is what is needed, either in respect to rate
or quality. A slow writer may misspell many words if he attempts to
hurry.
Many of the mistakes of poor spellers are merely _lapses_. These are
errors committed by children who “know better,” who can correct the
mistake spontaneously as soon as attention is called to it. There are
wide individual differences in the liability to lapse. It is difficult
to see what remedial measures may be taken to improve those whose
disability is due largely to lapsing, since lapses are not only
involuntary, but for the most part unconscious; there is no awareness of
them until one perceives them anew. Examples of lapsing may be seen in
“Complicated _musich which_ he heard played,” and “It _mak make_ an
impression,” for “It may make an impression.”
One might suggest that children who show this tendency in marked degree
should be trained to lay aside for a few minutes all written
communications; then to take up their work and look anew at each word,
in order to correct all lapses. It is not known experimentally how long
an interval must elapse in order that writing may “get cold,” so that
lapses may be detected by the author of them. A few minutes will
probably suffice.
_Transfer of habits previously acquired_ is occasionally the cause of
misspelling. Children who have learned to read and spell a phonetic
language, like German, or a language that proceeds from right to left in
spelling, are prone to difficulty with English spelling. The possible
existence of such an influence is to be determined by taking the school
history.
Sometimes it happens that the errors of the child are of one particular
kind. Such _idiosyncrasies_ may be exemplified by the case of a child
who had a strong tendency to add final “e” to all words; and by the case
of another, who was addicted to intrusive consonants, especially “m” and
“n.” These idiosyncrasies may doubtless be traced to their source in
every case by a patient analysis of the child’s mental contents. The
child who added final “e” may, for instance, have been told by a
careless teacher “Don’t leave off your ‘e’s’.” The cause of error will
be different in every case. It is impossible to generalize about
idiosyncrasies.
After all of the foregoing factors have been considered, there still
remains the possibility that the failure to learn is due wholly or
partially to _temperamental traits_—instability, indifference, lack of
incentive, distaste for intellectual drudgery. English spelling calls
largely for rote learning. It can be acquired only by the formation of
thousands of specific bonds, arbitrarily prescribed. Its pursuit is
almost inevitably tedious. Thus many children will be temperamentally
ill adapted to become good spellers.
Failure in spelling, in an intelligent child, may thus result from
various kinds of interference with prescribed habit formation. It is
apparent that the psychological examination of a poor speller is neither
a brief nor a simple task.
The direct examination of the individual should be supplemented by a
family history, a development history, and a school history. In some
cases special deficiency in spelling seems to be hereditary. Earle has
made a study of the inheritance of capacity for spelling, from which he
concludes that there is distinct fraternal resemblance in spelling.
Stephenson has reported six cases of special inability to read and
spell, which occurred in three generations of one family.
IV. CAN SPECIAL DEFECT IN SPELLING BE OVERCOME?
Spelling has received relatively little study as a process, in
comparison with the attention which has been given to reading and
arithmetic. We have no variety of experiments carried out to improve
poor spellers, as we have in the case of poor readers. In 1918 the
present writer reported, with Miss Winford, the results of studying and
teaching a group of poor spellers, from the fifth grade. The experiment
extended over two periods of ten weeks each, but the time was largely
devoted to observations of the errors made, measurements of
intelligence, and inventions of incentives for arousing interest in
spelling as a group project. No child was taken individually, and given
intensive instruction, as with the boy, X, in reading, reported in
Chapter IV.
During the period of class teaching, all the poor spellers improved, as
measured by the Ayres scale, but the three very poorest still remained
at the bottom of the class. By intensive individual instruction any one
of these three might have made much greater improvement.
We are, therefore, now in need of experiments carried out to improve
poor spellers. Such experiments must include precise measurements of
intelligence, ability to spell, ability to read, and amount of time
expended. They must include a description of the sensory equipment of
the spellers, and information on all points listed under the suggested
outline for the examination of poor spellers. There must be an adequate
account of method used, and objective measurements of improvement must
be presented.
From knowledge of spelling as a process of habit formation, it would be
predicted that any child of average intelligence, and normal sensory
capacity, can learn to spell, if sufficient drill be undergone. English
spelling is, however, relatively resistant to learning, because of the
specific character of the connections to be made. Very few
generalizations are possible, each word being to so great an extent a
special matter. For this reason it is very important to teach first the
words most commonly used. These have been ascertained by research in the
Russell Sage Foundation.
V. DOES READING TEACH SPELLING?
In the _Atlantic Monthly_ of October, 1921, an enemy of simplified
spelling writes as follows: “Spelling is not a craft by itself: it is a
part of writing and reading, training of eye and hand. When a boy writes
‘starboard martyr’ for ‘Stabat Mater,’ or ‘forehead’ for ‘forward,’ he
writes what he hears; the fault is not with his ear but with his visual
image of the words. It means that he is not a reader, and is not
accustomed to the appearance of the words. To try to teach him the
distinctions by lists of letters alone would be about as useless as to
try to teach him to distinguish people he never saw by means of verbal
descriptions.”[15]
[Illustration:
FIG. 10.—Composition written at school by X in December, 1920. X was
then in grade 5B. The facts are correctly understood, but the
spelling does not show great profit from previous reading of the
text in history.
]
Have psychologists produced any evidence to show whether the view is
correct, that reading will teach spelling? The positive correlation
between ability to read and ability to spell does not, of course, give
light on this question. Neither does correlation between amount of
reading done and ability to spell, for the positive correlation, which
would undoubtedly appear, might mean only that general intelligence
determines both the amount of reading and accuracy of spelling, to the
extent of positive correlation found.
[Illustration:
FIG. 11.—Letter written by X showing how he could spell by use of
dictionary.
]
The case of X, described in Chapter IV, is somewhat instructive in this
connection. The necessity to learn reading was so urgent that it was
soon decided to give no time to spelling as such. The special teaching
did not, therefore, include formal instruction in written spelling. The
regular spelling lessons at school were, of course, taken by X, as well
as might be.
After X had learned the letters thoroughly, so that he never erred in
writing one, he made great improvement in his grades on the regular
spelling lessons given at school, in which assigned words were learned
by rote.
Words not thus specifically learned were spelled “by ear,” with the
general result which is exemplified in Figure 10.
X was taught the use of the dictionary, and by its aid he could spell as
shown in Figure 11.
In German or Italian, the mutual helpfulness of reading and spelling
would probably be much greater, for words in these languages are not
nearly so specific in character as English words are.
VI. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
Two cases are herewith given, to illustrate the marked discrepancies
which may rarely be found between general intelligence and ability to
spell. The first is that of a schoolboy of average intelligence, whose
spelling is illegible. The second is that of a feeble-minded schoolgirl,
whose spelling is very much above what would be predicted from mental
age and IQ.
[Illustration:
FIG. 12.—Showing efforts to spell, of a 14-year-old schoolboy, of IQ
93, after eight years of school instruction. Illustrating extreme
dissociation of spelling ability from general intelligence. Compare
with Fig. 13.
]
This boy was 14 years 2 months of age, and had been in school since the
age of 6 years. His IQ was 93 (Stanford-Binet). He was referred for
mental examination, because of failure to learn to read and spell.
Figure 12 shows his attempts to spell the following words: _cannot_,
_September_, _burned_, _houses_, _center_, _thousand_, _fifty_,
_families_, _defends_, _bravely_.
[Illustration:
FIG. 13.—Showing spelling of a 12-year-old girl, of IQ 59, after six
years of instruction. Illustrating extreme dissociation of spelling
ability from general intelligence. Compare with Fig. 12.
]
The girl, who shows the opposite discrepancy, was in a school for the
feeble-minded, at the time of examination. Her age was 12 years 6
months, her mental age 7 years 4 months, with an IQ of 59
(Stanford-Binet). She had attended school for 6 years. Figure 13 shows
her ability to spell the same words attempted by the boy referred to
above.
On Ayres’ scale, this feeble-minded girl scored at fifth grade ability,
at least three years beyond expectation from general intelligence. The
boy, of average intelligence, scored on the Ayres scale below first
grade ability—at least seven years below expectation from general
intelligence.
The girl could not learn subject matter, or manage her affairs any
better than a 7-year-old child. The boy could work for money, was
reliable and efficient in ordinary affairs, could master subject matter
read to him, was expert in bird lore, and showed the general competence
of a typical 14-year-old, except in reading and spelling.
One judging these individuals for practical purposes, on the basis of a
test in spelling, would be profoundly deceived.
Figure 14 also exemplifies the spelling of a child whose general
intelligence cannot be correctly inferred from performance in spelling.
This child was 9 years 10 months old at the time this letter was
written, her mental age being 14 years 1 month. The child had been three
years in school. She learned reading very easily, reading at this time
with fluency and grace of inflection. Her case, therefore, illustrates
discrepancy between reading and spelling, as well as between spelling
and general intelligence.
The inadequacies noted here were probably due to distaste for the drill
which is required for mastery of spelling and punctuation. For bright
children, reading is motivated by the fact that from it they gain ideas.
In presenting ideas, it is not necessary to spell exactly, but only
approximately. Hence very young, bright children may read accurately,
but spell poorly.
[Illustration:
FIG. 14.—Showing spelling of a child 9 years 10 months old, with IQ
143, after three years of instruction. Illustrating dissociation of
spelling ability from general intelligence.
]
REFERENCES
CARMAN, E. K.—“The Cause of Chronic Bad Spelling”; _Journal of
Psychology_, 1900.
CHARTERS, W. W.—“A Spelling ‘Hospital’ in the High School”; _School
Review_, 1910.
EARLE, E. L.—_The Inheritance of the Ability to Learn to Spell_;
Columbia University, New York, 1903.
HOLLINGWORTH, L. S.—_The Psychology of Special Disability in
Spelling_; Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918.
HOLLINGWORTH, L. S.—“The Psychological Examination of Poor Spellers”;
_Teachers College Record_, 1919.
KALLOM, A. W.—“Some Causes of Misspellings”; _Journal of Educational
Psychology_, 1917.
PRYOR, H. C., and PITTMAN, M. S.—_A Guide to the Teaching of
Spelling_; The Macmillan Company, New York, 1921.
WESEEN, M. H.—“Can Spelling be Taught?” _American Education_, 1921.
WITMER, L.—“A Case of Chronic Bad Spelling”; _Psychological Clinic_,
1907.
CHAPTER VI
ARITHMETIC
I. RELATION BETWEEN IQ AND CAPACITY FOR ARITHMETIC
Arithmetic as a psychological process has been studied analytically by
psychologists more assiduously than any other of the school subjects,
except reading. The psychology of arithmetic began to be investigated
more than thirty years ago by laboratory workers, but so complex are the
functions involved that there still remains much to be known.
Correlations show that capacity for arithmetic is closely connected with
general intelligence. Most of the children who fail in the subject do so
as a symptom of a general lack of competence in thinking. The great
majority of those who are notably excellent arithmeticians are also
superior in other performances.
The four children of more than 180 IQ, mentioned in Chapter IV as having
learned to read before or during the third year of life, are also fine
mathematicians, excelling at lightning calculation and at thinking in
terms of numerical relations. Here, again, their marvelous skill at
numbers is but symptomatic of their rare general superiority. Although
the correlation between general competence and capacity for arithmetic
is high and positive, it is reduced from perfection by the occurrence of
discrepancies. Occasionally a very intelligent child is found, who does
not readily learn arithmetic, and on the other hand there exist children
whose ability at calculation far exceeds expectation from other
performances.
II. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARITHMETIC AND MATHEMATICS
Psychologically as well as logically, there is a distinction between
arithmetic and mathematics. In both respects the former is but one phase
or branch of the latter. By arithmetic is meant those functions of
mathematicians which involve numerical calculation. This includes the
four fundamental processes, with whole numbers and fractions,
enumeration, and the solution of problems requiring choice of process to
be employed.
Mathematics includes arithmetic, and also the relationships of space,
time, proportion, and probability, as subsumed in algebra, geometry,
trigonometry, and calculus. Psychologists find a positive
intercorrelation among abilities in these various branches of
mathematics, which is, however, not sufficiently close to unity so that
the possibility of marked specialization in some cases is excluded. Judd
has concluded that the abilities demanded by algebra, geometry, and
arithmetic represent, respectively, elements not included in the others.
Lightning calculators have been recorded, who could accomplish nothing,
apparently, in the derivation of formulæ, or abstraction of principles.
Rogers decided as a result of experimental tests of mathematical
ability, that “a marked degree of the power to analyze a complex and
abstract situation, and to seize upon its implications, is the most
indispensable element in mathematical proficiency.” This is the power
that makes for proficiency in all life’s difficulties, and he who has it
has unusual general intelligence—not mathematical proficiency only.
There is certainly slight possibility that a generally stupid individual
can ever deal with “higher mathematics.”
Since the processes other than the arithmetical have been very little
studied, the discussion of special aptitude in mathematics will here be
restricted largely to aptitude for arithmetic.
III. MENTAL FUNCTIONS IN ARITHMETICAL CALCULATION
In his recent presentation of the psychology of arithmetic, Thorndike
writes as follows:
“Achievement in arithmetic depends upon a number of different abilities.
For example, accuracy in copying numbers depends upon eyesight, ability
to perceive visual details, and short-term memory for these. Long column
addition depends chiefly upon great strength of the addition
combinations, especially in higher decades, ‘carrying,’ and keeping
one’s place in the column. The solution of problems framed in words
requires understanding of language, the analysis of the situation
described into its elements, the selection of the right elements for use
at each step, and their use in the right relations.”
A great number of habits, more or less specific, must be automatized.
There are all the combinations used in addition and subtraction, the
multiplication tables, the reading of large numbers, the manipulation of
fractions, the placing of the decimal point, and many others. These
habits are of very unequal difficulty. Ranschburg has shown, for
instance, that 5 + 2 is a much easier operation than is 2 + 5, and that
5 + 5 is easier than either. The difficulty of a combination is
augmented by increase in the second member. The difficulty increases,
also, as either or both of the members increase in value. The addition
of two identical numbers, of whatever value, seems always to follow a
different course from that of two unlike numbers, resembling
multiplication in the time taken.
These are a few illustrations of the subtleties of habit formation in
arithmetic, which are revealed only by laboratory methods. They suggest,
also, the complexity and multiplicity of connections, which enter into
ordinary achievement in arithmetic. Since the functions are thus highly
complex and specialized, what are their interrelations? How are they
organized, as regards the amounts of each found in given individuals?
IV. THE ORGANIZATION OF ARITHMETICAL ABILITIES
Thorndike and his students have shown that in general the correlation
between ability in any one important feature of computation and ability
in any other important feature of computation is positive and high.
Thorndike holds that if enough tests were made to measure each
individual fully in subtraction, multiplication with integers and
decimals, division with integers and decimals, multiplication and
division with common fractions, and computing with per cents, there
would probably appear intercorrelations for a thousand 14-year-olds of
near .90. Correlation between problem-solving and computation would
doubtless be much less, probably not over .60.
Thorndike expresses the following inferences, based on interpretation of
existing data.
“It should be noted that even when the correlation is as high as .90,
there will be some individuals very high in one ability and very low in
the other. Such disparities are to some extent, as Courtis and Cobb have
argued, due to inborn characteristics of the individual in question,
which predispose him to very special sorts of strength and weakness.
They are often due, however, to defects in his learning, whereby he has
acquired more ability than he needs in one line of work, or has failed
to acquire some needed ability, which was well within his capacity.
“In general, all correlations between an individual’s divergence from
the common type or average of his age for one arithmetical function, and
his divergence from the average for any other arithmetical function, are
positive. The correlation due to original capacity more than
counterbalances the effects that robbing Peter to pay Paul may have.”
In 1910, Brown undertook to determine whether there is a special
capacity for mathematics, and concluded from his correlations that there
is an especially close relationship among tests involving mathematical
performance. Ten years later, Collar made an effort to secure further
data as to whether arithmetical ability, as a unitary combination of
capacities, exists. Two hundred schoolboys were tested in the
investigation. Results led to the conclusion that arithmetical ability
tends to be represented in two main divisions: (1) the power to compute
with ease and readiness, and (2) the power to solve problems by
arithmetic, which involves the application of a higher degree of ability
than is required in computation.
Arithmetical tests of various kinds correlate more closely than do
arithmetical tests with non-arithmetical tests. “Hence we are compelled
to interpret this relationship as evidence distinctly in favor of Burt’s
suggestion, that there is an essential unity in arithmetical ability.”
All investigators have agreed in finding the correspondence between
computation and problem-solving much less than that found among the
various processes of computation alone. The facts are here analogous to
certain facts noted in the study of reading, in Chapter IV. There it was
seen that between proficiency in the mechanics of reading and
comprehension in reading there may occur marked disparity; and that it
is in mechanics that special discrepancies may be found between reading
ability and general intelligence.
In arithmetic the same observation may be made. Marked special defects
and talents are found in the mechanics of arithmetic, that is, in
computation. But problem-solving in arithmetic is closely correlated
with general intelligence, for it involves the capacities required for
problem-solving anywhere,—response to many subtle elements, the weighing
of these one against another, and choice of the procedure that will
yield solution. These are the same capacities that underlie
comprehension in reading, or grasp of any other situation offered by
life. They are all functions measured in tests of general intelligence.
In school, arithmetical problems are usually presented as reading
matter, so that reading for the comprehension of sentences is in itself
of first rate importance for achievement in problem-solving.
V. PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES OF SPECIAL DEFICIENCY IN ARITHMETIC
Studies of children especially backward in arithmetic, with the accounts
of the results of experimental teaching, have been contributed by Uhl,
Smith, Schmitt, and others. Bronner has also contributed accounts of the
psychological examination of such children.
Schmitt studied thirty-four pupils in the schools of Chicago, who were
not feeble-minded, but were extremely retarded in arithmetic. The
investigator states that tests of general intelligence were given, but
does not share with the reader the exact results of such tests, saying
only that the children “were not mentally defective.” The result of
tabulation of circumstances involved showed that ill-health and absence
were closely related to special disability in arithmetic. The inference
is drawn that achievement in arithmetic calls for a hierarchy of
_habits_, which depend on each other in a sequence. If a hiatus occurs
at any essential point, as through absence, inattention, or inadequate
teaching, confusion follows. (This inference seems very well justified,
also, from the psychological analysis of the mental functions involved
in arithmetic.) The problem of individual examination is to find out
what habits have not been formed. The problem of pedagogy is to teach
those habits, and to motivate the child.
Bronner’s conclusion that some children of good intelligence lack the
power to form number concepts is criticized by Schmitt. When the gaps in
habit formation have been located, and the child has been motivated to
form the missing habits, special deficiency in arithmetic disappears.
This is, on the whole, the conclusion to be drawn from the few studies
which have included experimental teaching. Uhl studied a boy who could
not subtract, according to standard tests. Analysis showed that he could
subtract only by multiplying. For example, to subtract 9 from 46, he
first set aside 1, to get a multiple of 9. Then he disintegrated 45 into
9’s and dropped one of them. After disposing of the 9 in this devious
fashion, he picked up his 1 again, and finally arrived at a correct
result. It was thus found why he was so _slow_, and where instruction
must be applied, in order to remedy the special deficiency which he
showed in arithmetical calculation.
In difficult combinations, pupils invent interesting evasions. “Breaking
up” larger numbers is common, so that 9 + 7 + 5 becomes 9 + 2 + 2 + 2 +
1 + 2 + 2 + 1, for instance.
Failure to form correct habits of interpreting symbols, or relations
between symbols, often explains deficiency. This may be illustrated by
the case of a girl who always read
______
40 ) 1728
as “40 divided by 1728.” Her results were thus fantastic. This error is
analogous to that of writing “three dollars” as 3$.
The remedy for these conditions is to show the child what he is doing,
and to give drill until the correct and rapid method is thoroughly
mastered. Special deficiency in the mechanics of arithmetic is to be
improved by drill, after it has been found out where the drill is
needed.
VI. METHODS OF DETECTING WRONG OR INCOMPLETE HABITS
Without systematic methods of testing, it would be a very difficult task
to discover just what connections might be wrongly or inadequately
formed, in the case of a given child. The standardized measuring scales
and practice exercises, devised during the past fifteen years, furnish a
systematic means of exploration. These are constantly being extended and
improved, to cover each and every kind of habit that a child must
acquire, for achievement in arithmetic.
The principle of these scales and tests is to establish by experiment
the speed and accuracy of typical school children, grade after grade, in
the performance of the various functions separately. It thus becomes
possible to discover in the case of a deficient pupil whether he needs
correction and drill in every function, or in only one function. By
means of the Courtis tests, for example, it may be discovered whether a
child’s difficulty is in addition, multiplication, division, in speed or
accuracy, or both speed and accuracy, and so forth.
The use of existing scales and tests for diagnostic purposes has been
described by Courtis, Uhl, Anderson, and others. We may expect great
improvement in these methods in the future. At present the
standardizations are in terms of school grade norms. A better plan for
diagnostic purposes would be to standardize in age norms, giving a
percentile distribution for each twelve-month interval of the period of
immaturity.
VII. NERVOUS INSTABILITY AND SPECIAL DEFICIENCY IN ARITHMETIC
Nervously unstable children are, as Burt has pointed out, often
deficient in arithmetic, even when in general intelligence they are not
deficient. This follows from the same causes of failure as were set
forth under discussion of nervous instability and special difficulty in
reading. To build up little by little the intricate hierarchy of
arithmetical habits, each habit in its essential sequence, is a task
uncongenial to the flighty, uncontrolled, or negativistic neurotic.
Individual instruction is here, again, the solution of the problem. The
neurotic can learn arithmetic within the limits of his intelligence, by
means of patient individual instruction, given preferably at rather
brief sittings.
VIII. ARITHMETICAL PRODIGIES
Extremely great ability to perform feats of mental arithmetic excites
popular wonder and admiration to a degree far beyond that excited by
most other manifestations of mental gifts. This may be due to the fact
that in calculation each individual has a rather definite standard of
performance, namely his own ability to calculate. When another goes far
beyond him and his friends, in so definite a performance, he can see for
himself that the typical has been phenomenally exceeded. The gifted
person who exceeds the typical to an equal extent in perception of the
fine shades of meaning in words, or in the detection of absurdities and
contradictions in demagogy, creates no sensation among his fellow
townsmen; for there is no way whereby the average man can “check up” in
the performances, to show himself how phenomenally he has been exceeded
in capacity for them.
Bidder, the famous English calculator, is recorded in history because he
could perform mental arithmetic perhaps fifty times as well as typical
persons. The facts that he also became one of the most successful civil
engineers of his time, and made a large fortune, are noted as of merely
incidental interest, and would not have given him a place in the history
of unusual persons. A man may make fifty times as much money as the
average man does, by meeting with fifty times as much acumen and energy
the intricate, subtle, and difficult situations offered by modern
economic life. Yet he is not so very likely to be regarded as
prodigiously gifted. His fellowmen can and will explain the difference
between him and themselves as due to luck or circumstance. But a gift
for “lightning calculation” is obviously peculiar to the person, and
makes of him an object of wonder.
The same general considerations hold in the case of children. Many
children of extraordinary intelligence are found, because they have
attracted attention to themselves by excellence in arithmetic; and upon
examination show themselves to be equally excellent at those tests which
measure IQ, excellence in which is not necessarily conspicuous except to
the trained psychologist.
Accounts of prodigious calculators go back to ancient Greece, in
Lucian’s reference to Nikomachos of Gerase. The word “calculation” means
literally “pebbling,” coming from the Latin _calculi_, pebbles. Records
of lightning calculators have been collected by Scripture and by
Mitchell.
Jedediah Buxton (b. 1702) appears to be the first calculator on record
in modern accounts. He lived at Elmton, England. “He labored hard with a
spade to support a family, but seems not to have shown even usual
intelligence in regard to ordinary matters of life.... In regard to
matters outside of arithmetic he appeared stupid.” In 1754, when he was
taken to London to be tested by the Royal Society, he went to see _King
Richard III_ performed. “During the dance he fixed his attention upon
the number of steps; he attended to Mr. Garrick only to count the words
he uttered. At the conclusion of the play, they asked him how he liked
it.... He replied that such and such an actor went in and out so many
times, and spoke so many words; another so many.... He returned to his
village, and died poor and ignored.” It is said that he could give an
itemized account of all the free beer he had had from the age of 12
years.
Tom Fuller, “The Virginia Calculator” (b. 1710), seems to be another
case of highly specialized ability. He came from Africa as a slave when
about 14 years old. He is first heard of as a calculator at the age of
70 years, when it is stated that he reduced a year and a half to seconds
in about two minutes, and 70 years, 17 days, 12 hours to seconds in
about a minute and a half, correcting the result of his examiner, who
had not taken leap years into the reckoning. He also calculated mentally
the sum of a simple geometric progression, and multiplied mentally two
numbers of nine figures each. He was totally illiterate.
Other prodigious calculators, who are not known to have had superior
general ability, are Zerah Colburn (b. 1804), Henri Mondeux (b. 1826),
Jacques Inaudi (b. 1867), and Ugo Zaneboni (b. 1867). None of these
individuals achieved eminence in any other respect, but this does not
necessarily prove that they were not of superior intelligence. It would
have been impossible, for instance, for the slave, Tom Fuller, to
achieve intellectual eminence in a profession.
None of them was studied psychologically except Inaudi, who was examined
by Binet. Inaudi was an Italian by birth. In childhood he tended sheep,
as did Mondeux. His passion for numbers began at the age of about 6
years. At 7 years of age he could multiply five-place numbers by
five-place numbers, “in his head.” His memory span for digits given
orally was 42. He must hear them, the span being considerably reduced if
he only saw them. He had little education, and did not learn to read and
write until he was 20 years old. He lived by public exhibitions of his
power to calculate. Binet concluded that he had no particular ability
except the gift for calculation, and was not generally superior.
None of these calculators showed any gift for mathematics beyond
arithmetic. Many others are on record who are known to have had great
all-round superiority, and mathematical genius of the highest order, as
is proven by their achievements. Bidder (b. 1806), Bidder, Jr. (b.
1837), Safford (b. 1836), Gauss (b. 1777), Ampère (b. 1775), Hamilton
(b. 1788), and Whatley (b. 1787), all were lightning calculators.
George Parker Bidder was the son of a stonemason, of Devonshire. His
family history is on record, and is quite interesting in connection with
his gifts. His eldest brother, a Unitarian minister, had an
extraordinary memory for Bible texts, but took no special interest in
arithmetic. Another brother was an excellent mathematician and insurance
actuary. Still other members of the family were distinguished in
non-mathematical pursuits. Bidder’s ability was first noticed when he
was 6 years old. In 1822, at the age of 16 years, he took a prize in
mathematics at the University of Edinburgh. He became a distinguished
engineer, and accumulated wealth, as before stated. His son, the younger
Bidder, was wrangler at Cambridge, and became barrister and Queen’s
counsel. He could multiply fifteen-place numbers by fifteen-place
numbers, and could play two games of chess simultaneously, blindfolded.
Two of his daughters “showed more than average ability in mental
arithmetic.”
Truman Henry Safford was the son of a Vermont farmer, both parents
having been school teachers. His power in calculation was noticed when
he was 3 years old. At about 7 years of age, he began to study algebra
and geometry, and soon thereafter, astronomy. In his tenth year he
published an almanac, computed entirely by himself. His interests
included chemistry, botany, philosophy, geography, and history in
addition to astronomy and mathematics. He took his degree at Harvard in
1854, at the age of 18 years, and became an astronomer. He was professor
of astronomy in Williams College for many years, until his death, and
made many important astronomical calculations and discoveries.
Carl Frederick Gauss, the great mathematician, was a lightning
calculator, the marvels of his performance exceeding those of nearly all
others. Gauss entered the gymnasium when he was 11 years old, and in
mathematics soon surpassed his teachers. He began the study of higher
analysis at 10, and at 14 could read Newton with understanding. At 24 he
published _Disquisitiones Arithmeticæ_, which is a fundamental
contribution to mathematics. He himself has related that he remembers
having followed by mental arithmetic a calculation concerning the wages
of his father’s workmen, and of having thus detected an error in the
reckoning, at the age of 3 years. He could use from memory the first
decimals of logarithms, and was especially ingenious at discovering new
methods. Gauss was unquestionably a person of very extraordinary general
intelligence. As a child he mastered not only mathematics, but also the
classical languages with wonderful ease. It is quite possible, however,
that his gift for mathematics exceeded his general capacity in other
respects.
The renown of André Ampère’s achievements in science is commemorated in
the ampère. As a child, he showed all-round ability, and encyclopedic
interests. He learned counting at 3 or 4 years of age, by means of
pebbles, “and was so fond of this diversion that he used for purposes of
calculation pieces of a biscuit, given him after three days’ strict
diet.” There is no question that Ampère was a child of extremely high
IQ, the ability at calculation being but one manifestation of his great
genius. He was a chemist, a metaphysician, and a mathematician. He
became professor of mathematics, and wrote on probabilities, the unity
of structure in organisms, and electrodynamics. In this last field he
discovered fundamental truths, and immortalized his name. He was elected
to the Academy of Sciences in Paris, and is recognized as one of the
world’s great thinkers, not as a calculator merely.
Richard Whatley, Archbishop of Dublin, was a prodigious calculator as a
child. From 5 to 9 years of age he astonished onlookers by his feats. He
afterwards ceased to interest himself in calculation, but used his
intellectual capacity for achievement in other fields.
The greatest calculator on record, according to the researches of
Scripture, is Johann Dase, born in Hamburg, in 1824. He could count
objects with extreme rapidity. “With a single glance he could give the
number, up to 30 and thereabouts, of peas in a handful, scattered on the
table”; could give the number of sheep in a herd, or books in a case so
quickly that his record remains unequaled. He could carry on enormous
and protracted calculations, without recording figures, but seemed not
to comprehend mathematical principles. He attended school when 2 to 3
years old, and began public exhibitions at 15 years of age. From the
records it is not possible to prove or disprove superior general
intelligence.
There are on record but three calculators, who were personally examined
by psychologists, so far as the present writer can learn. Inaudi,
already mentioned, and Pericles Diamandi, a Greek grain merchant, born
in 1868, were examined by Binet. Arthur Griffith, son of a stonemason,
born in 1880, was examined by Lindley and Bryan, in the laboratory at
the University of Indiana, in 1899.
Binet concluded that Inaudi had no unusual ability except for mental
calculation, and that his auditory memory for digits was a special gift.
Diamandi, on the other hand, in addition to his ability in calculation,
knew five languages, was an incessant reader, and wrote both novels and
poetry. He entered school at 7, and remained until he was 16, always
heading his class in mathematics. His methods in calculation were
visual. “He has a number-form of a common variety, running zigzag from
left to right, and giving most space to the smaller numbers. This
number-form he sees as localized within a peculiar grayish figure, which
also serves as a framework for any particular number or other object,
which he visualizes.”
Griffith had, from the age of 3, a passion for counting and made fair
records in all studies. He entered school at 10, and attended school
seven years. In scope and tenacity of memory, and in rapidity at
calculation, he ranked with the best recorded cases, according to the
investigators who examined him. Memory was described as very systematic;
and rapidity was seen to depend on the great number of numerical
relations committed to memory, and upon reduction in number of
operations through short-cut methods.
These three examinations were all conducted more than twenty years ago,
before standardized methods of measurement had been developed. It is
difficult to glean from them, and from the biographical material
compiled by Scripture and by Mitchell, what the truth is, as regards the
extent to which this gift for calculation was special in these persons.
Many of them, as we have seen, were certainly men of genius, with
general capacity for selective thinking. Several others probably were
not of superior general intelligence, but in no case can we be certain,
on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone. Some of them were peasants or
slaves, born to manual toil, in the absence of free schools, and in the
presence of rigid class distinctions. It is not inconceivable that a
child of IQ over 170, condemned by unavoidable environment to herd sheep
or pick cotton through his youth, might find relief from the monotony of
his work by calculating. As Mitchell, himself a lightning calculator,
says, “Given a knowledge of how to count, and later a few definitions,
and any child of average ability can go on, once his interest is
accidentally aroused, and construct, unaided, practically the whole
science of arithmetic, no matter how much or how little he knows of
other things.” This statement is probably true, if we change one word,
and substitute for “child of average ability,” “child of great ability.”
All who have examined lightning calculators, or searched their
biographical records, are agreed that the secret of their power lies in
highly developed mechanics. Special _habits_ of combining and
recognizing numbers are formed, which differ from ordinary calculation
comparatively in somewhat the same way as the method of the child who
added 7 + 5 by adding 7 + 2 + 2 + 1, the latter being analogous to the
usual method.
The lightning calculator memorizes combinations far beyond those
ordinarily memorized, so that he is, for instance, able to add 2581 +
1763 as quickly as an ordinary person can add 15 + 8. He learns
multiplication tables up to 100 × 100, whereas we learn only through 12
× 12. He devises and uses many “short cuts,” _e.g._ multiplying by two
easy numbers and taking the difference, instead of multiplying by an
awkward number. Multiplication is probably used as the fundamental
operation.
This specialization in and perfection of arithmetical connections, by a
person of original aptitude for and interest in numbers, results in the
prodigious calculator. As Scripture concludes, “These persons had
enormous ability to learn calculation, not to calculate without
learning.” The rôle played by practice is seen in the fact that if
interest in counting wanes, and practice at calculation ceases, the
skill acquired deteriorates through disuse. Whatley, and others, who
became distracted from calculation by other interests as they grew up,
lost the power they had possessed. However, by resuming practice, the
skill can be regained by those who have acquired it, as is the case with
skills in general.
Satisfaction in mental activity for its own sake is expressed by those
calculators who have given introspections. After Safford had lost the
power of lightning calculation through disuse, he continued to take
pleasure in factoring large numbers, or in satisfying himself that they
were prime. The younger Bidder said, “With my father, as with myself,
the handling of numbers or playing with figures afforded a positive
pleasure, and constant occupation of leisure moments. Even up to the
last year of his life,[16] my father took delight in working out long
and difficult arithmetical and geometrical problems.”
All who have studied material relating to prodigious calculators have
especially stressed the very early age at which the gift has shown
itself. This is especially true of those who achieved greatness in
science, as adults. Gauss, Whatley, and Ampère were all first noted at
the age of 3 years, and Safford and Bidder at the age of 6 years. It
appears to the present writer to be probable that any child of IQ over
180 could be taught to be a lightning calculator. This inference comes
from observing such children, as they master numbers.
IX. ARITHMETICAL ABILITY OF TWO CHILDREN OF IQ 184 AND IQ 187
(STANFORD-BINET)
To illustrate mathematical aptitude in children of high IQ, a brief
account is herewith given of two boys, both known professionally to the
present writer since early childhood. These children are both of a
degree of general intelligence so rare as to be scarcely ever found, and
both are especially interested in mathematics.
The boy D, of IQ 184, was described first by Terman, in _The
Intelligence of School Children_. His achievements are most remarkable
in every kind of intellectual activity, including music and drawing.
Among his favorite pastimes since infancy has been the manipulation of
numbers. His calculations, dating from the time his hand could wield a
pencil, have covered hundreds of pages. As a child of 7, 8, and 9 years,
D found the keenest satisfaction in deriving formulæ to render himself
unbeatable at family games based on number. At the age of 12 years he
has completed the mathematical curriculum of the elementary and
secondary schools, through arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and
trigonometry. (It should be added that he has also completed the
curriculum of the elementary and secondary schools in all other
respects, and is ready at 12 years to enter college.)
Figure 15 shows D’s calculations on Test 2, of Army Alpha, Form 5, five
minutes being allowed for the performance. Figure 16 shows his
calculations on Test 6, of the same form of Alpha, three minutes being
allowed. D was 10 years 11 months old on the date of these calculations.
He had never previously seen either of these tests.
[Illustration:
FIG. 15.—Showing D’s calculations on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 10 years 11 months, five minutes being allowed for the
performance. The only figuring done on paper appears in the margin.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 16.—Showing D’s calculations on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at
the age of 10 years 11 months, three minutes being allowed for the
performance.
]
The second child to whom we wish to refer briefly is R, of IQ 187. He,
too, has delighted in number from about the third year of life. When
first seen by the present writer, at the age of 6 years 6 months, R’s
memory span for digits was at least eight (beyond this he was not
tested), and he could easily reverse seven digits at least (beyond this
the test did not go). He has been taught short cuts and other mechanics
of lightning calculation till now, at the age of 8, he can with great
speed calculate the answer to such a series as “2 × 2 × 2 × 2 multiplied
by twice the square of 2; square it,” or “2255^2 − 2245^2.”
In Figure 17 is shown R’s calculation on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, and
in Figure 18, his performance in Test 6, the time limits being the same
as indicated for D. R was 7 years 6 months old on the date of these
performances. The ordinary child of that age can, of course, make no
score whatever. R had never previously seen either of the tests.
R’s teacher[17] writes of him, “His ability in academic work seems well
distributed, though strongest in mathematics. For this grade he is
remarkably low in art and industrial work, but he would be average in
the second grade, where his age would usually place him. His artistic
feeling is all for music and literature.... I think he is rather clumsy
with his hands even for his age, though not much below the average
child. With his mental ability he can learn to do anything in which his
interest is aroused.... As he goes on, I hope that we can arrange for
him to work with more advanced groups in mathematics and science, though
remaining in the present group for most of the day.... In mathematics it
is noticeable that although he can use short cuts which are Greek to the
class, he is quite as apt to make an error in concrete problems as the
other bright children. This is not lack of attention or interest, for he
is always keenly alive in any lesson in mathematics. For example, in
shop where he was making a table with a top 24 inches square, he was
shown the lumber (12 inches wide) and asked how many pieces he must
prepare for the table. He replied ‘three,’ and it was some time before
he was led to recognize his mistake.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 17.—Showing R’s calculation on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the
age of 7 years 6 months, five minutes being allowed for the
performance. Note immature formation of the numerals. The only part
of the figuring done on paper appears in the margin.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 18.—Showing R’s calculation on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the
age of 7 years 6 months, three minutes being allowed for the
performance. Note immature formation of the numerals.
]
With his love of mathematics, R combines a passion for classifying. As
early as his first year of life, he would classify his playing blocks
according to the shape of the letters on them,—O, Q, P, and the like
together, and A, V, W, N, M, and the like in another group, and so
forth. This delight in classifying is also one of D’s most conspicuous
characteristics.
X. THE INHERITANCE OF ARITHMETICAL ABILITIES
From his search through the literature pertaining to arithmetical
prodigies, Mitchell concluded that he could not find sufficient data
from which to generalize concerning heredity. This conclusion is no
doubt justified. We must wait upon modern studies, in order to gain
knowledge of the extent to which such tendencies may be inherited. We
may note, however, that many relatives, gifted in some way, are reported
among the lightning calculators of history. Diamandi’s mother “had an
excellent memory for all sorts of things,” and a brother and a sister
out of a family of fourteen siblings shared his aptitude for mental
arithmetic; the family history of the Bidders has been referred to
already; Safford’s father and mother were both teachers; Gauss had a
maternal uncle of known mechanical and mathematical talent; Mitchell’s
younger brother could play chess blindfolded. Of the two children, D and
R, herein described, both have many adult relatives who are or were
writers, money makers, inventors, or organizers. Of this generation, D
is an only child, but he has several cousins. Of these, three who have
been measured show IQ’s of 150, 156, and 157, respectively. R’s only
brother has an IQ of 150, and of his two cousins, both girls, the only
one yet measured has an IQ of 170. These are suggestive fragments of
facts concerning family resemblances.
Cobb has made a quantitative study of resemblance between parents and
children, in the various fundamental processes, using five of Courtis’
standard tests. She finds that the coefficient of correlation between
child and like parent is .60, between child and unlike parent, .01,
between child and mid-parent, .49. By “mid-parent” is meant the ability
that falls midway between the abilities of the two parents. Twenty
persons were studied in eight families. No sex differences were noted. A
child of either sex may resemble either parent, and not all children of
the same family do resemble the same parent. Cobb concludes that the
likeness found is due to heredity.
In the matter of sex differences, it is notable that of all the
lightning calculators recorded only one, and she of minor importance,
was of the female sex. It is possible that this difference may be due to
native sex differences in the inheritance of endowment. It is much more
probably due, however, to those differential pressures—social,
educational, and economic—which cast up to public notice more deviates
of all kinds among the male sex. During the periods from which the
records of lightning calculators have been gathered, this differential
pressure was much more forceful than it is now. Because of the
differential action upon the sexes of social pressures, it is never
possible to make valid comparisons of the sexes in respect to mental
deviation, unless the sampling has been rigidly made in some manner
absolutely indifferent to selection, and unless the measurements have
been objectively taken.
XI. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION
Studies thus far made would convince us that arithmetical skill consists
in the automatization and integration of a hierarchy of habits, which
can be acquired to a passable degree by all children of average
intelligence. Lightning calculation results from building up and
rendering automatic still further habits, and can be achieved by persons
of great general intelligence. It remains an open question whether a
generally stupid person can ever become a prodigious calculator, but it
seems certain that interest in and aptitude for arithmetic may be
especially marked in generally superior children.
Arithmetical ability may develop, without simultaneous development of
ability in other branches of mathematics. One may calculate
prodigiously, without comprehending algebraic and geometric principles,
or being interested in them. Also one may be more or less adept, either
by nature or by training, in one kind of arithmetical function than in
others.
Drill is the means for improving arithmetical ability, so far as speed
and accuracy of calculation are concerned. Ability in problem solving
can probably not be much affected by drill, since “a problem” is, by
definition, something that requires independent adjustment, and not the
response of automatic habit. It therefore calls on general intelligence,
and cannot be improved after the mechanics of reading and calculating
have been mastered up to the limits of capacity.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, C. I.—“The Use of the Woody Scale for Diagnostic Purposes”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
BINET, A.—_Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d’échecs_;
Paris, 1894.
BROWN, W.—“An Objective Study of Mathematical Intelligence”;
_Biometrika_, 1910.
COBB, M.—“The Inheritance of Arithmetical Abilities”; _Journal of
Educational Psychology_, 1917.
COLLAR, D. J.—“A Statistical Survey of Arithmetical Ability”; _British
Journal of Psychology_, 1920.
GILLINGHAM, A.—_One Child’s Struggle in the Preparation for Life_;
Pedagogical Seminary, 1913.
LANTERNE, S.—_Psychologie du nombre et des opérations élémentaires de
l’arithmétique_; Paris, 1907.
LAZAR, E., and PETERS, W.—“Rechenbegabung und Rechendefekte bei
abnormen Kindern”; _Fortschritte der Psychologie_, 1915.
LINDLEY, E. H., and BRYAN, W. L.—“An Arithmetical Prodigy”;
_Psychological Review_, 1900.
MÁDAY, H. V.—“Die Fähigkeit des Rechnens beim Menschen und beim
Tiere”; _Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie_, 1913.
MILLER, G. A.—“Mathematical Prodigies”; _Science_, 1907.
MITCHELL, F. B.—“Mathematical Prodigies”; _American Journal of
Psychology_, 1907.
MÖBIUS, P. J.—_Ueber die Anlage zu Mathematik_, 2nd edition; Barth,
Leipzig, 1907.
RANSCHBURG, P.—_Die Rechenschwäche (Arithmasthenie) der Schulkinder im
Lichte des Experiments_; J. Springer, Berlin, 1916.
ROGERS, A. L.—_Experimental Tests of Mathematical Ability and Their
Prognostic Value_; Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918.
SCRIPTURE, E. W.—“Arithmetical Prodigies”; _American Journal of
Psychology_, 1891.
SCHMITT, C.—“Extreme Retardation in Arithmetic”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1921.
SMITH, J. H.—“Individual Variations in Arithmetic”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1916.
TERRY, P. W.—“The Reading Problem in Arithmetic”; _Journal of
Educational Psychology_, 1921.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—_The Psychology of Arithmetic_; The Macmillan Co.,
New York, 1921.
UHL, W. L.—“The Use of Standardized Material in Arithmetic for
Diagnosing Pupils’ Methods of Work”; _Elementary School Journal_,
1917.
CHAPTER VII
DRAWING
I. THE VARIOUS KINDS OF DRAWING
Manuel, who has made a careful psychological study of talent in drawing,
defines drawing as follows: “The term _drawing_ designates a process of
causing, by means of pencil, pen, brush, or other instrument, certain
lines or areas, or both, to appear on a given surface.” This definition
we may accept, if we add that the lines and areas are intended or can be
interpreted to signify something. We should not agree, for instance,
that the lines and areas which are caused to appear on the ground by the
scratching of a fowl should be included within the definition.
Having been thus defined, drawings may be classified into many kinds, in
accordance with the technique employed and the meaning conveyed. These
kinds are (1) copying, (2) representative drawing, (3) analytical or
diagrammatic drawing, (4) impressionistic drawing, (5) symbolic drawing,
and (6) caricature. This classification is exclusive of other forms of
graphic or representative expression, such as painting, sculpture, and
paper-cutting (used in the art of cutting silhouettes).
These various kinds of presentations differ as to the psychophysical
equipment constituting talent for them. It is therefore impossible, as
psychological study has proved, to discuss talent for drawing, without
specifying what kind of drawing is under consideration. Talent for
painting, sculpture, and cutting silhouettes has been little studied, so
that we are not in position to discuss these at the present time, either
as processes in themselves or as related to drawing.
The term _copying_ is self-explanatory. By _representative drawing_ is
meant a drawing having visual realism, which “looks like” that from
which it is drawn. _Analytical (diagrammatic) drawing_ is logical. It
may violate features essential to visual realism, stressing only aspects
from certain points of view, or abstracting a general principle. For
instance, the plan for the ground-floor of a house, or a schema of
arterial circulation, would be analytical. _Mechanical drawing_ comes
under this category, as does also, in a sense, _conventionalized
drawing_, for in conventionalized drawing some general principle or
pattern is abstracted from concrete instances, and is made the basis of
the design. A conventionalized bird does not look like any particular
bird ever seen by anyone, but, on the other hand, it looks like all
birds. It is a non-existent, composite, typical bird. _Impressionistic
drawing_ conveys an idea without much attention to visual realism. A
curve stands for a cloud, two vertical lines suggest trees, a few zigzag
marks indicate grass and flowers. In _symbolic drawing_ one thing is
drawn to represent another thing, as a crown is drawn to represent
royalty. Symbolic drawing does not, perhaps, deserve separate
classification, in a study of abilities, but for the present it seems
best to differentiate it. To originate symbolic drawings may call for
capacities not included in the other forms of graphic presentation.
Finally, _caricature_ is drawing that catches and exaggerates individual
peculiarities, most often with a result which is humorous or satirical.
The art of cartooning depends very largely on caricature and symbolism
for its effect. Cartoons interpret life. The successful cartoonist,
therefore, combines talent for drawing with a high degree of general
intelligence.
II. RAMIFICATIONS OF DRAWING THROUGH THE CURRICULUM
When we speak of drawing in the schools, there is a tendency to think
only of those performances which are taught and executed during the time
set aside for instruction by the teacher of drawing. But a little
reflection will show us to what an extent drawing ramifies through the
curriculum, and forms an element in achievement.
In geography map-drawing is required. In nature study, notebooks with
drawings of natural objects seen are frequently kept. In sciences taught
by the laboratory method drawing is an important element in success.
Zoölogy, physiology, and botany are especially taught through drawing.
In mechanics, and in engineering, drawing plays a prominent part. Thus
it comes about that school marks in all these subjects depend to some
extent on drawing of some kind. If psychological study shows capacity
for drawing to be largely or utterly dissociated from general
intelligence, the use of drawing to so great an extent, as a method of
recitation in the sciences especially, may be undesirable. The belief
that drawing used in this way fails to meet the need of many pupils,
otherwise apt in science, led Ayer to undertake the interesting
investigation to which it will be necessary to give our attention in
detail, throughout this chapter.
III. PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TALENT IN DRAWING
It is quite interesting to notice that the analysis of ability in
reading, spelling, and arithmetic has been approached largely through
studies of the particularly deficient, while in the case of drawing and
music the approach has been through study of the gifted, to a greater
extent.
The psychographic study of individual talent in drawing was preceded by
many investigations of what children draw, at what ages various details
appear in drawings, how the drawings of one group compare with those of
another, and what people say about the drawings they make. These
studies, up to 1915, have been brought together by Ayer, and are so well
summarized by him in relation to the study of aptitude, that there is no
need to summarize them again. Those who desire to become familiar with
the whole literature of the psychology of drawing will do well to
consult Ayer’s work.
Several analyses of ability to draw have been undertaken, some through
study of the particularly deficient, some through study of the
conspicuously talented. Meumann thus states the causes of inefficiency
in drawing:
(1) The will to analyze and to notice forms and colors has not been
stimulated.
(2) The intention to analyze may be aroused, and yet the individual
may find the analysis too difficult. This is a matter of innate
talent.
(3) The memory of that to be represented may be deficient. It may be
incomplete or vague in form or in color. The memory of spatial
relations may be inadequate. This, too, is a matter of innate talent.
(4) There may be lack of ability to hold the image during the act of
drawing. This capacity is innate.
(5) The memory image and the perceptual image may not be coördinated
with the movements in drawing. This capacity is innate.
(6) The sight of the drawing in its imperfection as compared with the
memory image may disturb the image.
(7) The drawer may lack schemata on which to found his drawing.
(8) There may be failure to comprehend how one may project space in
three dimensions upon a plane.
(9) Manual skill may fail.
(10) There may be no artistic sense.
(11) Inability to draw may arise from a combination of various of
these deficiencies.
Manuel has offered the following analysis, after study of persons
especially talented:
The following characteristics, each an independent or partially
independent variable, seem closely related to ability in drawing:
(1) The ability mentally to note a visual form, and, by certain lines
and areas, to reproduce it or significant features of it.
(2) Ability to observe.
(3) Ability to select from a complex visual situation the most
representative and the most beautiful aspects.
(4) Memory for visual forms.
(5) Ability mentally to manipulate visual forms.
(6) Ability to control hand movements in accordance with visual
percept or image.
(7) Ability to invent, to bring together into new artistic
combinations the elements of different visual experiences.
(8) Ability to judge the beautiful in line, form, color, and
composition.
(9) Ability to discriminate differences in color.
(10) Ability to discriminate differences in visual magnitude.
(11) Acuity of vision.
(12) Interest in the act and products of drawing.
(13) General intelligence.
These two analyses may serve as samples, since they include practically
all the elements suggested by any other investigators. Jones has
recently furnished us with additional evidence that memory of objects
visually perceived and perception of perspective are probably important
contributors to drawing ability. Among 264 school children in the
seventh and eighth grades of the Evanston public schools, a correlation
was found of .83 between visual memory and ability to draw. Perception
of perspective and visual memory yielded a coefficient of .85.
As a result of administering more than twenty tests to 19 individuals
gifted in drawing, Manuel concludes that, “Persons talented in drawing
exhibit great individual differences in their psychophysical
characteristics.” Nevertheless, tests devised to measure status in the
traits listed in the analyses which have been made, would be expected to
yield, finally, a psychograph of talent in each of the various kinds of
drawing. Persons approximating these psychographs could then be
identified as talented in drawing, and those deviating widely from them
could be classified as deficient in ability to draw. The invention and
standardization of such tests is a matter for further research. At
present we have no means of gauging talent in drawing except by grading
a finished product on a scale of drawings, like Thorndike’s “Scale for
Measuring Achievement in Drawing.” Such a means does not always
adequately separate talent from training.
The hope that psychographs of ability to draw may be platted in future
does not mean that psychologists expect to find complete similarity
among those talented in drawing. Individuality is as intrinsic in
drawing as it is in handwriting. As a signature can be used for
identification in the hands of experts, so a picture bears the mark of
the particular psychophysical constitution that produced it. The
ordinary reader of current fiction knows, by inspection, whether a given
illustration has been made by May Wilson Preston or by Tony Sarg,
without seeing the signature. The drawings of Clarence Day are
inimitable.
IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN APTITUDE IN DRAWING AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
As long ago as 1903, Fischlovitz studied 350 high school freshmen, to
obtain the correlation between ability to draw and ability in other high
school studies. Correlations were computed between grades in drawing and
in other subjects. The conclusion was that, “Ability in drawing is
correlated to a greater degree with some of the subjects than with
others, but in no case is the correlation very strong, and that ability
in drawing is more of a special ability.”
Some years later, Elderton obtained a correlation of .416 between grades
in drawing and grades in classics, for one class, and of −.313 between
the grades in the same studies, in another class. The subjects were here
19 boys in each of two classes in an English public school. Ivanof found
among Swiss children a tendency for the able in drawing to include
somewhat more good all-round pupils than were included among the pupils
at large, and an opposite tendency among those poor in drawing. The
figures show, however, many pupils strong in general work listed among
those poor in drawing. Ayer obtained a correlation of .66 between grades
in drawing and other subjects, for 141 normal school students.
As Ayer points out, these methods are very crude as means of determining
to what extent drawing is a special ability. In the first place, since
drawing is used as a form of recitation in various school subjects, we
are obtaining to some extent a self-correlation in subjects like science
and geography. In the second place, grades in drawing do not specify
_what kind_ of drawing is graded. In the case of Ayer’s normal school
students, special inquiry showed that the grades in drawing were
computed from heterogeneous factors, including (_a_) ability in
representative drawing, (_b_) ability in designing, (_c_) ability in
artistic discrimination, (_d_) ability with color, washes, shading,
etc., (_e_) attendance, (_f_) discipline, (_g_) vocational interest.
School marks do not, therefore, isolate ability in any one kind of
drawing, from a medley of other relevant and irrelevant factors, the
mark being bestowed upon the total composite of factors.
Much more reliable as a method of research is the method of tests. In
Simpson’s data, already quoted, it is seen that drawing lengths shows
very slight coherence with other abilities. Other similar fragmentary
suggestive facts may be found, scattered through the literature. In 1916
Ayer undertook a well-planned investigation to determine how two kinds
of drawing, (1) representative drawing and (2) analytical drawing, are
related to (_a_) ability in verbal description and (_b_) achievement in
school subjects on the whole.
A turkey feather was drawn representatively, drawn analytically, and
described verbally by 51 high school pupils. Twenty-four hours after the
analytical drawing, the pupils were again required to make a diagram of
the feather and to answer questions about its parts. The results of
these various efforts were then scored by ten competent judges
independently, to obtain a final score for each pupil in each test.
The table, from Ayer, on page 149, shows the rank obtained by each pupil
in each kind of performance. The pupil who stands first in memory stands
thirty-eighth in representative drawing, and so forth down the series,
for each pupil.
In the following table, from Ayer, we see the coefficients of
correlation found between the various functions tested, as computed from
the ranks listed in the table on page 149.
TABLE FROM AYER
Showing correlations in case of representative drawing, retention,
diagramming (analytical drawing), and description.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ABILITIES CORRELATED COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION
(PEARSON)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Representative drawing and description .023
Diagramming and representative drawing −.052
Diagramming and description .231
Representative drawing and retention −.022
Description and retention .234
Analytical drawing and retention .433
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TABLE FROM AYER
Rank in retention, representative drawing, description, and analytical
drawing, as tested in the case of 51 students in a first year high
school class in general science.
═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════
RANK IN MEMORY │ RANK IN DRAWING │ RANK IN │ RANK IN DIAGRAM
│ │ DESCRIPTION │
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
1│ 38│ 2│ 1
2│ 41│ 14│ 5
3│ 37│ 1│ 14
4│ 22│ 30│ 41
5│ 7│ 46│ 4
6│ 17│ 20│ 10
7│ 48│ 22│ 43
8│ 27│ 19│ 6
9│ 42│ 6│ 27
10│ 39│ 9│ 31
11│ 31│ 44│ 19
12│ 36│ 10│ 9
13│ 18│ 41│ 26
14│ 21│ 29│ 12
15│ 9│ 38│ 23
16│ 35│ 13│ 35
17│ 51│ 37│ 24
18│ 25│ 35│ 39
19│ 10│ 24│ 34
20│ 26│ 5│ 25
21│ 12│ 17│ 30
22│ 28│ 49│ 51
23│ 34│ 25│ 13
24│ 3│ 12│ 15
25│ 45│ 45│ 3
26│ 24│ 7│ 2
27│ 6│ 32│ 47
28│ 16│ 34│ 18
29│ 20│ 31│ 8
30│ 4│ 50│ 22
31│ 44│ 18│ 40
32│ 19│ 4│ 17
33│ 13│ 48│ 45
34│ 33│ 16│ 33
35│ 11│ 8│ 44
36│ 23│ 47│ 36
37│ 1│ 43│ 38
38│ 43│ 33│ 29
39│ 8│ 36│ 11
40│ 29│ 42│ 21
41│ 30│ 3│ 46
42│ 2│ 26│ 42
43│ 47│ 28│ 28
44│ 32│ 21│ 7
45│ 15│ 27│ 20
46│ 46│ 39│ 47
47│ 49│ 11│ 16
48│ 50│ 40│ 50
49│ 5│ 45│ 30
50│ 40│ 23│ 48
51│ 14│ 51│ 49
═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════
The correlation between representative drawing and verbal description is
practically zero. From knowledge of ability in one of these functions,
among high school students, no inference can be made concerning the
other. Ability in diagramming (a kind of analytical drawing) is also not
correlated with representative drawing. On the other hand, the processes
of diagramming and description exhibit a slight tendency to positive
coherence, as do description and retention. Analytical drawing and
retention have a decided tendency to cohere, with a coefficient of .433.
In order to check his finding that school marks in drawing correlate
well with school marks in other subjects, Ayer correlated the scores of
these 51 high school pupils in _representative drawing_, with their
school marks and found an absence of relationship. “Ability in
representative drawing is not correlated with achievement in school
subjects, when it is isolated from the other factors of school drawing.”
Ayer concludes that different kinds of drawing are differently
correlated with general intelligence, and that it is necessary to
isolate the various kinds in determining the relationship. Analytical
drawing is a better indication of a pupil’s general grasp of subject
matter than is representative drawing. He recommends “that the device of
representative drawing shall be supplanted in laboratory teaching,”
since it appears to be a highly specialized function.
The question of the relationship between general intelligence and
ability to draw has also been investigated by Manuel, who took the IQ of
each of his talented subjects by means of Stanford-Binet. These were
pupils in elementary school, high school, and college. This means of
measuring general intelligence was ill adapted to its purpose in the
case of the college students and, also, probably in the case of many of
the high school students among his subjects, as the scale will not
measure the intelligence of very superior adolescents and adults.
Because of its limitations, the most intelligent adult in the world
cannot show an IQ of more than about 120 on it. Therefore some of
Manuel’s older subjects may have been much more intelligent than appears
on the record. The range of intelligence among those talented in drawing
may be even greater than the record shows. The tests as they stand show
that superior ability in drawing may accompany any degree of general
intelligence from very superior to very inferior. “We conclude therefore
that a certain elementary ability in graphic representation, such as is
required for success in elementary school drawing, is independent, or
partially independent, of general intelligence.”
It should be stated that presence of talent in drawing in the case of
these individuals was determined in part by testimony of teachers of
art, and in part by two tests, (1) the drawing of a house from memory,
and (2) the drawing of a wooden cart from the object. Both of these
would be classified as _representative drawings_.
Where representative drawing has been isolated for study in relation to
general intelligence, no results contradictory to the conclusions stated
above have been reported. Earlier investigators had declared that great
talent for graphic expression is closely connected with good
intellectual endowment in children, but that “the reverse of this does
not hold true.” This conclusion will probably be shown to be well
founded in future researches carried out by modern test methods. “Great
talent” includes much more than mere ability to “see and make” an
object. As Manuel says, “Before one gets very far in art expression, a
great number of supplementary factors must be brought to the support of
the ability to represent graphically simple objects. Even the technique
itself becomes progressively more difficult.... General intelligence
conditions the ability of drawers (_a_) to acquire the advanced
technique into which conceptual factors enter, and (_b_) to create
original drawings of merit.”
Manuel also gave tests of linguistic ability in the course of his study
and found no essential relationship between ability to draw and ability
to manage words. “Linguistic ability is no index of ability or lack of
ability in graphic representation,” but linguistic ability correlates
well with general intelligence (as has been previously emphasized in
this volume).
For purposes of educational and vocational guidance we now need
especially studies of the relationship between general intelligence and
kinds of drawing other than the representative. We require studies of
the extent to which copying, analytical drawing, symbolic drawing, and
caricature are correlated with general mental capacity. It may be
predicted with some confidence that research in unselected groups will
finally show copying and representative drawing to be slightly
correlated with general intelligence. Analytical and symbolic drawing
are probably significantly correlated with general intelligence, while
caricature is doubtless very closely correlated with intellectual
capacity.
We need also researches bearing upon the relationship between ability in
painting, sculpture, and pattern-cutting, and general intelligence. To
what extent are painters and sculptors of high repute also gifted with
superior intellectual acumen? Popular opinion would have it that the
“artistic mind” is antagonistic in its organization to the “scientific
mind.” Probably here as elsewhere uncontrolled speculation leads to
false conclusions. Probably those who achieve eminence in the arts are,
on the whole, as highly endowed with general intelligence as are those
who win eminence in other kinds of careers. Greatness in graphic
portrayal almost certainly results only when there is a rare combination
of highly specialized capacity for representative drawing, and very high
IQ, in the same individual.
Fortunately for all, modern life calls for all forms of talent in
drawing, in all degrees of combination with general intelligence. Sign
painters, copyists, designers, draughtsmen, architects, illustrators,
and creative interpreters of human faces and of human life are all
needed. Persons skilled in drawing are essential to mechanical and
industrial development in society, for everything made must first be
drawn, from the motor of an airplane to the fancy buttons on a child’s
coat.
V. THE COLOR-BLIND
Between 3 and 5 per cent of boys, and apparently fewer girls, inherit a
special defect of vision, called “color blindness.” A color-blind child
may be gifted in drawing, except in color drawing, but he will be
incompetent as a painter.
There are several forms of this special defect. Very rarely it may
happen that no discrimination among colors is possible, the world
appearing, as in a photograph, to consist only of light and shade. In
the late evening, or in any sufficient dimness, color is not perceived
by ordinary eyes. Those who are blind to all colors do not see color
with the brightening of the light, as ordinarily happens.
The most common form of color blindness is, however, that in which only
red-green sensations are absent, other colors being distinguishable.
There is no disease present in such cases. The defect is hereditary, and
consists in deviation from the typical in structure of the retina. The
eyes of color-blind persons are as healthy and normal as those of
others, in respect to functions other than acting as receptors for
certain waves of light.
A few cases of blue-yellow color blindness have been reported, these
resulting from pathological causes.
A color-blind child does not, of course, know from his own experience
that he is so. He supposes that everyone sees what he sees, until
informed by test or disaster of his deviation from the usual.
Color blindness seems to bear no relation to intelligence, so that in
drawing where color is used teachers will find a certain percentage of
generally very able children producing absurd results. A color-blind
child with a great gift for drawing, may succeed in etching or in black
and white work of various kinds, as has been shown by the actual rise to
eminence of etchers who are color-blind.
VI. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
The facts which have been set forth in regard to ability in drawing will
be further illuminated by concrete cases. In Figure 19 we have
reproduced the psychograph of a child in the elementary school, E 1,
showing talent in representative drawing combined with very inferior
intelligence.
E 1 was a pupil in the sixth grade, at the time when this psychograph
was made. She was nearly 14 years old, and therefore distinctly retarded
in school status. In spite of her general incompetence, her drawing
teacher placed her near the top of her grade in native ability to draw.
The child is described as not original. “She can follow better than she
can originate.” “Apparently her talent for drawing is inherited. Her
father is a tailor. He enjoys drawing and lettering. Her mother takes
great interest in the children’s drawings, and an aunt has made
paintings of some interest. An older brother of E 1 is reported as very
good (original and true) in drawing. She has also two younger sisters
and a younger brother who are good in drawing.”
Figure 20 shows a copy of a man’s portrait, done by a 14-year-old boy,
of IQ near 70. This boy was incapable of normal progress through the
school curriculum. Being “left back” repeatedly, he became a truant and
otherwise delinquent. His ability for and interest in drawing are highly
specialized. Figure 21 shows drawings of movement (not copied) by the
same boy.
[Illustration:
FIG. 19.—Showing the psychograph of a stupid child, who has a special
ability in representative drawing. (From Manuel’s _A Study of Talent
in Drawing_. Reproduced by courtesy of The Public School Publishing
Company.)
]
The special ability in paper-cutting of a feeble-minded man, “Dick,” is
illustrated in Figure 22. At the time these silhouettes were cut, this
man was 28 years old, strong and healthy, with a mental level of 6 years
4 months, and IQ 39 (Stanford-Binet). He has been an inmate of an
institution for mental defectives for seventeen years, as his general
intelligence is insufficient for any kind of unsupervised career. He has
never been able to learn to read or write.
[Illustration:
FIG. 20.—Showing special ability in drawing, of a 14-year-old boy, of
IQ near 70. The portrait is a copy.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 21.—Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy, of
IQ near 70.
]
This man is greatly interested in animals, and after being taken to the
circus sometime ago, became a nuisance in his preoccupation with what he
had seen there. In cutting the silhouettes, he merely takes a sheet of
paper in one hand, a pair of scissors in the other, and cuts absolutely
“free-hand,” without reference to any preliminary patterning or
draughting, either from memory or from a model. The performance is
accompanied by many naïvely vain remarks, calling attention to his skill
and the quality of the product. He can also draw, as is shown in Figure
23. He has never had any special training so far as known.
For the sake of contrast, we have presented, in Figure 24, the attempts
of two university professors to cut an elephant from paper, as did
“Dick” in Figure 22. These two professors are both doctors of
philosophy, distinguished in their respective fields for research. Yet
they are greatly surpassed by “Dick” in ability to cut silhouettes.
VII. INHERITANCE OF TALENT IN DRAWING
A comprehensive study of the inheritance of talent in drawing is yet to
be made. Manuel took the family history of the pupils studied by him,
and found artistic ability of some kind among close relatives in almost
all cases. The gift showed itself in early childhood in these talented
persons, and there is every reason to believe that it was bestowed by
the conditions of near ancestry.
VIII. GENERAL SUMMARY
It is clear that talent for representative drawing arises from a happy
combination of a great many variable functions; and that this
combination may occur in persons of superior, average, or inferior
intelligence. Likewise, conspicuous lack of this talent is compatible
with intelligence of almost any degree. Therefore, many children
considered by their teachers of drawing to be pupils of ability, will be
rated as but mediocre, or as inferior, by other teachers. This will be
true especially to the extent that drawing as a subject of instruction
is limited to _representative drawing_.
[Illustration:
FIG. 22.—Showing the special ability to cut silhouettes, of a
feeble-minded man, inmate of an institution for mental defectives.
See also Figure 23.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 23.—Charlie Chaplin pursuing a gentleman, and pursued by a
policeman. Showing the special ability to draw, of a feeble-minded
man, in an institution for mental defectives. See also Figure 22.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 24.—Showing attempts by two distinguished university professors
to cut silhouettes of an elephant. Compare with Figure 22.
]
Since superior students of science may or may not have ability to draw,
it is probably undesirable that success in elementary courses should be
made to depend largely on drawing.
Distinguished achievement in analytical, symbolic, and interpretative
art is probably as incompatible with native stupidity as is
distinguished achievement in any other field of technical endeavor.
Persons who can draw, but are nevertheless generally dull, should
probably not be guided toward the career of designer, architect,
cartoonist, or portrait painter.
All persons possess in some amount each and every one of the capacities,
which in rare and happy combinations constitute talent in drawing. The
typical child possesses them in typical degrees, so that the majority
can draw moderately well. Since in after life most children will enjoy
the drawings of others more frequently than they will themselves draw,
probably it would be of value to devote a relatively greater part of the
curriculum in drawing to forming acquaintanceship with pictures.
Interest in drawing, painting, or sculpture may be present without
talent, but probably keen interest and talent are most often combined.
At present educational psychologists have before them the task of
extending research, so that the word “probably,” so often used in this
discussion, may be replaced by “certainly.” The accomplishment of this
task will call for the coöperation of artists, in particular.
REFERENCES
AYER, F. C.—_The Psychology of Drawing_; Warwick and York, Baltimore,
1916.
BINET, A.—“La psychologie artistique de Tade Styka”; _L’année
psychologique_, 1908.
CHILDS, H. G.—“Measurement of the Drawing Ability of Two Thousand One
Hundred and Seventy-seven Children in Indiana School Systems by a
Supplemented Thorndike Scale”; _Journal of Educational Psychology_,
1915.
ELDERTON, E.—“On the Association of Drawing with Other Capacities in
School Children”; _Biometrika_, 1910.
FISCHLOVITZ, A.—_An Inductive Study of the Abilities Involved in
Drawing_; Columbia University, 1903.
JONES, E. E.—“The Correlation of Visual Memory and Perception of
Perspective with Drawing Ability”; _School and Society_, 1922.
IVANOF, E.—“Corrélation entre l’aptitude au dessin et les autres
aptitudes”; _Archives de psychologie_, 1908.
KERSCHENSTEINER, G.—_Die Entwicklung der zeichnerischen Begabung_;
Gruber, Munich, 1905.
KIK, C.—“Die übernormale Zeichenbegabung bei Kindern”; _Zeitschrift
für angewandte Psychologie_, 1908.
MANUEL, H. T.—_A Study of Talent in Drawing_; Public School Publishing
Company, Bloomington, Ill, 1919.
MEUMANN, E.—“Ein Programm zur psychologischen Untersuchung des
Zeichnens”; _Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie_, 1912.
PANNENBERG, H. J., and W. A.—“Die Psychologie der Zeichners und
Malers”; _Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie_, 1919.
PETER, R.—“Beitrage zur Analyse der zeichnerischen Begabung”;
_Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie_, 1914.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“The Measurement of Achievement in Drawing”;
_Teachers College Record_, 1913.
TILDESLEY, M. L.—“Preliminary Note on the Association of Steadiness
and Rapidity of Hand with Artistic Capacity”; _Biometrika_, 1918.
WHITFORD, W. G.—“Empirical Study of Pupil Ability in Public School Art
Courses”; _Elementary School Journal_, 1919.
WHITFORD, W. G.—“Curriculum Building in Art”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1920.
CHAPTER VIII
MUSIC
I. WHAT IS MUSIC?
Among animals, only birds and men can produce music. Possibly, of these,
men only can appreciate it. It is not agreed as to whether birds can
appreciate music. They respond to it, and even imitate it, as in the
case of the mocking bird, but we cannot be sure that their singing is
for “pure joy,” or for the love of the melody rendered. With the
majority of men we know that musical tones arranged in melody or harmony
act as original satisfiers, by and in themselves. “Music hath power to
soothe the savage breast.”
The analysis of capacity for musical performance, and the study of
individual differences in this respect, were preceded by monumental
studies of tone-psychology, rhythm, pitch-discrimination, and acoustics.
In these researches psychologists, physiologists, and physicists have
joined efforts. As Mead says in discussing Meyer’s theory of melody,
“The search for the basis of music is centuries old; it antedates the
search for the philosopher’s stone, the Holy Grail, and the North Pole.”
Nevertheless, in spite of all their searching, scientific men have not
discovered the basic psychology of harmony and melody. Meyer, a lifelong
student of the problem, concludes that, “Where we hear a succession of
different pitches, we are affected in a certain way which cannot be
described, but has to be regarded as an elementary psychological fact.”
The satisfaction experienced by the typical person upon hearing a
harmony, and the annoyance experienced by him upon hearing a discord,
remain among the mysteries, perhaps unfathomable, of human psychology.
II. THE VARIOUS KINDS OF MUSIC
There are many different kinds of music, requiring certain differences
in psychophysical equipment for their execution, severally. For
instance, singing requires certain equipment which may be lacking in a
highly gifted organist. An organist must have characteristics which are
possibly dispensable to the harpist.
To sing, to play the piano, to play the violin, to play the trombone, to
compose a symphony, to write musical criticism—these are by no means all
necessarily possible to the same person. A complete inventory of musical
talent will rest upon knowledge of how all the various kinds of music
are related as regards the capacities required in each, and of how the
violinist may differ from the singer, and the drummer from the conductor
of an orchestra.
III. THE ANALYSIS OF MUSICAL TALENT
Since about the year 1915, psychologists have turned somewhat from the
study of the nature of music to the investigation of the musical person.
They have raised the questions: In what way does the musician differ
from others in his psychophysical equipment? Why are some persons unable
to produce or appreciate music?
The pursuit of these questions led immediately to an analysis of musical
talent, for it was evident at once that a great variety of subsidiary
functions contribute to any kind of musical performance. These may first
of all be classified under three general categories: (1) _the acoustic
functions_, the abilities involved in perceiving musical sounds, (2)
_the motor functions_, the abilities involved in executing musical
sounds, and (3) _the intellectual functions_, ability to interpret
musical compositions, and to originate new ideas.
It is in the United States and in Germany that the significant studies
of musical and unmusical persons have been made. Rupp, Bernfield, the
Pannenbergs, Révész, Schussler, and Seashore and his students have all
made contributions to the subject.
Révész studied children who were extremely gifted in music, and proposed
that in analysing musical talent the following abilities must be
considered: (1) to compose, (2) to reproduce, (3) to hear, (4) to
remember musical elements, (5) to transpose, (6) to improvise, (7) to
modulate, (8) to play at sight. In addition Révész stipulated that
observations must be made with regard to intelligence, interest, and the
“artistic nature” of the child. Later, in 1920, Révész proposed eight
tests devised for the identification of the musical. These were for (1)
the sense of rhythm, (2) absolute pitch, (3) octave recognition and
transposition, (4) relative pitch, (5) harmony, (6) memory of a melody,
and (7) playing by ear.
The most complete inventory of musical talent that has been proposed is
that of Seashore, who, with his numerous students, has made the most
important contributions in this field. Seashore would include tests of
all the following functions in the complete musical psychograph:
I. Musical Sensitivity
_A._ Basic Capacities
1. Sense of pitch 2. Sense of intensity 3. Sense of time 4.
Sense of extensity
_B._ Complex Capacities
1. Sense of timbre 2. Sense of rhythm 3. Sense of consonance
4. Sense of volume
II. Musical Action Natural capacity for skill in accurate and
musically expressive production of tones (vocal or instrumental
or both) in
1. Control of pitch 2. Control of intensity 3. Control of
time 4. Control of timbre 5. Control of rhythm 6. Control of
volume
III. Musical Memory and Imagination
1. Auditory imagery 2. Motor imagery 3. Creative imagination
4. Memory span 5. Learning power
IV. Musical Intellect
1. Musical free association 2. Musical power of reflection 3.
General intelligence
V. Musical Feeling
1. Musical taste: likes and dislikes 2. Emotional reaction to
music 3. Emotional self-expression in music
Seashore has succeeded in devising, standardizing, and making available
for practical purposes scales of measurement for five of the basic
capacities of musical sensitivity. These are for pitch, intensity, time,
consonance, and tonal memory. Research is under way to bring the other
elements of musical talent similarly within the province of mental
measurement.
Attempts to study movement as an element in musical talent are
exemplified by the recent investigations of Gatewood and of Hansen.
Gatewood studied finger-movement in a number of persons, and found that
there exist those who, even with great amounts of practice, do not
approximate the speed and accuracy which others show on the first trial.
However, the investigation of the motor elements in musical talent has
not progressed as yet to a point that would enable us to make positive
statements useful to educators; but it is obvious that for guidance they
are fully as important as the acoustic elements are.
IV. RELATION AMONG VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF MUSICAL TALENT
Correlation has proved that sense of pitch and sense of time are largely
independent of each other. Persons may stand high in one and low in the
other. We know even now, therefore, that the elements of talent are
independent or partially independent variables, and that excellence in
one may be accompanied by inferiority in another. The successful
musician is he who combines the necessary elements in high degree. Most
children combine the elements in moderate or typical degrees of each,
and are able to learn music and enjoy it in the ordinary manner. Only a
few are capable of becoming professional performers. Schussler concluded
that 5 to 10 per cent of the pupils examined by him might be justly
classified as unmusical. A similar percentage would doubtless be
classified as very musical, of whom a small proportion would be capable
of outstanding musical achievement.
V. RELATION BETWEEN MUSICAL TALENT AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
It is somewhat difficult to compare musical talent with general
intelligence, within a group of individuals, by test, because the tests
which have been devised are to an extent dependent on intelligence for
their execution. In order to perform them, it is necessary to follow
somewhat complicated directions, and to do this requires the exercise of
intelligence. Seashore’s tests cannot be reliably carried out with
persons whose general intelligence level falls below about nine years.
Within the range of intellect which is sufficient for understanding and
carrying out the directions, musical sensitivity as regards pitch,
intensity, time, and consonance shows no reliable correlation with
general intelligence. This is what we should expect from test results,
on the basis of the relationships shown previously between ability in
music and ability in school work on the whole. For instance, Schussler
found that of pupils classified by his criterion (grades received in
singing) as “unmusical,” 41 per cent reached the grade norms in school
work. Of those classified as “semi-musical,” 57 per cent reached the
norms. Of the “musical,” 79 per cent reached the normal status. The
average standing in marks of the “musical” fell 15 per cent above that
of the “unmusical,” while the “semi-musical” showed an average rating
6.6 per cent higher than the “unmusical.”
When we consider that school marks in singing, as in drawing, are given
not only for musical capacity, but for a heterogeneity of factors,
including effort, attendance, ability to comprehend directions, and so
forth, we should at once expect from these figures that by actual test,
musical ability would be likely to show marked independence of general
intelligence. Nearly half of the distinctly “unmusical” children reached
or exceeded the grade norms, in general school work. This is not far
from what is true of children taken at random, regardless of musical
talent. That a disproportionately large number of pupils who did very
good work in music reached or exceeded the typical performance in school
work on the whole, might be expected from the extent to which school
marks in music are probably given for general superiority of the
organism, as suggested above.
The present findings from actual tests of sensitivity, above the minimum
of intellect required for carrying out test directions, are that
correlations closely approach zero as regards musical sensitivity and
general intelligence. Therefore, educators may expect to find a number
of pupils, who fail in nothing but music, and others who succeed in
nothing but music. As Witmer has said, in discussing the specialization
of musical gifts, “Were society so organized that success in life in
every sphere of activity were dependent upon a good enough ear to turn a
tune, many persons who are now doing useful work in the world, would
have to be relegated to the class of imbeciles.”
In view of the facts, the wisdom seems doubtful of requiring all
teachers in the elementary schools to qualify in singing before being
certified, as is now done in some places. There will be a goodly number
of students, in the normal schools, who are fitted by original endowment
to become excellent teachers, except that they will never be able to
sing. In the case of a gift so specialized, it seems advisable to have a
special teacher wherever possible, rather than to disqualify from
teaching persons who cannot sing, but are otherwise well fitted to
educate the young.
Tests show that musical talent is specialized, but this is not to say
that eminence in music can be attained by the stupid. The achievement of
eminence in any endeavor calls for a grasp of life situations and a
farsighted fidelity to sustained effort, which are functions of general
intelligence. Also, for eminence in a musical career the intellectual
functions which have to do with composition and interpretation are
doubtless indispensable. A survey of the general intelligence of eminent
musicians would probably reveal a median well above the average; and
this would probably hold true even for singers.
VI. ABSOLUTE PITCH
By absolute pitch is usually meant the power to recognize a single
musical note when heard, without comparison with any other tone, either
objective or subjective. It seems to be an hereditary gift, and probably
cannot be acquired by training. (Some doubt has, however, been recently
cast upon the latter conclusion by the researches of Gough, who was
apparently able to educate persons in this respect to a limited extent.)
Statements regarding the frequency of those who possess this
idiosyncrasy vary, from that of Boggs, who says that only a few persons
have the gift, to that of Seashore, who declares that “the ability to
name notes of a familiar keyed instrument on hearing a single tone is
rather common among trained musicians, and may show itself very early in
childhood.” Perhaps the discrepancies of statement arise through lack of
complete agreement as to what should be meant by “absolute pitch.” If
the definition is insistently limited to that often given, namely, “the
power to name a single musical note when heard, without comparison with
any other tone,” then no doubt the gift belongs to very few people, even
those otherwise musically well endowed.
Seashore holds that in these cases, it is probably not pitch as such
which is recognized, but rather the timbre of the note. “The timbre of
the low notes is entirely different from that of the higher notes, and
the evidence seems to show that it is easier to remember a
characteristic timbre than pure pitch in itself.”
The gift of absolute pitch is a great advantage to a musician. It is
included as a valuable asset in the talent-inventory of Révész.
VII. TONE DEAFNESS
Certain anomalies of structure in the ear give rise to tonal “gaps” and
“islands.” The ear does not discriminate among pitches, in certain
segments of the scale for pitch. Such a condition may occur in but one
ear of a given individual, the other ear then hiding the defect.
The child who is extensively deaf to tones has, of course, no means,
save the testimony of others, of knowing whether he is or is not singing
properly (unless he sees his singing on a tonoscope). He cannot be
taught to sing in key, because the receptors which would enable him to
profit by training are absent from the structure of the ear. Many a
tone-deaf child has doubtless suffered much from persistent,
conscientious efforts to make him sing.
VIII. RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
In a previous chapter it has been pointed out that quantitative
psychology is still struggling toward the invention of scales which
shall measure mental traits in terms of units, every one of which shall
be equal to every other, as every inch is equal to every other inch.
Until this is achieved, we cannot use “times as” comparisons in speaking
of the relation of one individual to another, in respect to a function.
We can now say that one person is three times as heavy as another
person, because we can measure them in pounds, each one of which is
equal to every other. But we cannot yet say that one person is three
times as intelligent as another, because we have not captured the unit
which would enable us to do so.
In some of the traits which go to make up musical talent, it is possible
to use the “times as” comparison, because we have physical units whereby
the differences may be gauged. Pitch, for instance, may be measured
thus. It depends physically upon the frequency of vibrations, proceeding
from a sounding stimulus, and is measurable in terms of the constant
number of double vibrations per second. Seashore has found variations in
power of discrimination from one-fourth of a double vibration to fifty
double vibrations per second. This means that there exist individuals
who are at least two hundred times as sensitive as others to pitch, in
terms of the physical unit.
Other elements in musical sensitivity cannot be so readily measured in
stimulus units, so that the “times as” comparison cannot be made. The
great diversity of sensitivity to pitch may, perhaps, be regarded as a
token of the range of individual differences in musical sensitivity,
especially since pitch is a fundamental capacity. It is probably no
exaggeration to say that, in an ordinary class in the elementary school,
children are being taught together, some of whom are at least a hundred
times as musical as others. If children of the same age differed as much
from each other in height as they do in sense of pitch, it would be
impossible to teach them in unassorted groups, for some would be two
hundred times as tall as others. The diversity in mental traits, so much
greater than in physical traits, leaves us complacent, for the eye
cannot behold the incongruities, as it can in physical matters. The eye
cannot see the waste of time, effort, and joy which follows from the
attempt to train, equally and together, children of such widely
differing capacities for learning.
IX. CAN MUSICAL CAPACITY BE INCREASED BY EDUCATION?
Musical sensitivity is inborn, and probably cannot be increased in any
respect by training. If the various elements are not present in amount
and combination suitable for a given degree of achievement in music, no
course of training will supply the lack. This is not to say that
ultimate achievement, for those who do possess capacity, does not depend
on training. Achievement depends upon both training and capacity, but
the latter cannot be supplied except by hereditary endowment.
The question of improvement through education becomes especially
important in a case where the psychograph is excellent, but for one
element. Much depends, of course, upon what the inferior element is, and
the degree of the inferiority, as to whether the person will be able to
succeed in a given musical career.
Inferiorities that appear in capacity for musical _action_ are possibly
much more susceptible to improvement by training than are inferiorities
of _sensitivity_.
For example, there are persons whose psychographs show excellent musical
talent, except that they falter from the pitch in singing. The voice may
be excellent in range, quality, and volume, yet with a falter in control
which leads to “flatting” or “sharping.” This is a defect in musical
action, an inaccuracy of movement.
It has long been known that the control of movement is brought about not
only through the kinæsthetic sensations, but through aid from the other
special senses as well. Vision is a first rate aid to the acquisition of
motor control. It is a more efficient aid than hearing, because much
finer differences can be detected by vision. The problem, then, in an
endeavor to improve by training those who “flat” or “sharp,” is to
devise some method whereby visual aid may be administered to control.
Such a method has been found in the tonoscope, an instrument which
registers visually every pitch movement of vocal chords, or other
sounding body. Practicing with the tonoscope, the musician can see what
his errors are, and learn what motor reaction will bring correction. The
control of the eye is thus introduced into practice, as it is in tennis,
writing, or other form of precise motor learning. Singers of all degrees
of talent show improvement in pitch after practice with this instrument,
and the improvement continues after the instrument has been laid aside.
The gain made with the help of the eye remains in motor control, just as
once having learned to write by aid of the eye, we can easily write in
the dark or with eyes closed.
The susceptibility to improvement in other forms of musical action has
not been shown experimentally, this whole field being practically
unstudied as yet by experimental method.
X. THE INHERITANCE OF MUSICAL TALENT
The inheritance of musical talent has been investigated by Copp and by
Stanton. The latter has made measurements of specific musical capacities
in relatives of musicians, using Seashore’s tests. This is the beginning
of adequate study of the inheritance of musical talent, as the method,
though laborious, is correct.
Four of the Seashore measures of musical talent were given to
eighty-five members of six unrelated family groups, starting in each
group with a person conspicuously known as a musician. These
measurements were supplemented by a set questionnaire, covering musical
endowment, musical education and training, musical activity, musical
appreciation, musical memory and imagination, the questionnaire
including a larger number of relatives.
From these data, a study was made of the tendency of offspring to be
musical or unmusical, in accordance with parentage and more remote
ancestry. The results show that musical talent is inherited, and the
investigator believes it not improbable that the formula of inheritance
may be Mendelian. Much wider research would, however, be avowedly
necessary, in order to establish the formula. It may or may not be
Mendelian.
The offspring of a mating of musical with unmusical, of musical with
musical, or of unmusical with unmusical, may thus inherit from either
parent or from both parents, and apparently without regard to sex. Sex
differences do not appear, either, in any of the tests of musical
sensitivity, which have been standardized.
XI. PSYCHOGRAPHIC STUDY OF INDIVIDUALS
In order to illustrate concretely the way in which musical talent may or
may not accompany other mental capacities, a few psychographic studies
of individuals are presented, as follows.
The first is the psychograph of a girl, whom we may call G, aged 14
years. It shows her status in percentile ratings, on various mental and
motor tests. G is of average, or typical, general intelligence, with
superior rating in musical capacity, and in drawing.
G was brought for mental tests because she did poorly in the school
where she was attending, receiving good marks in music and drawing only.
The difficulty in keeping up to grade in general was readily explained,
when the facts of school history were elicited. G was in a very
exclusive private school, where the median IQ of the pupils is about
120, instead of 100 as among unselected pupils. This child, on account
of the social status and educational traditions of her father’s family,
had been competing all her school life in a highly selected group of
children, and was now considered dull by teachers, by parents, and by
herself. All were astounded to learn of G’s average intellectual
capacity.
[Illustration:
FIG. 25.—Psychograph of G, showing special ability in music and
drawing. (Percentile values for speed in tapping, and strength of
grip have been approximated by estimate.)
]
It may be remarked in passing that this is the school history of many an
average child, born into a group where the family median is above the
average. The problems of the son of an eminent man, who fails to inherit
superior endowment and is but average in capacity, are especially acute,
for he is usually expected to undertake tasks for which he is
unqualified by original nature. The miseries of a boy of average
ability, expected from babyhood to pass through Harvard or Yale, the
distresses of a girl of ordinary intelligence, destined openly from
childhood for a college of very high standards, are peculiarly poignant
to the person who sees human nature in the light of all the facts which
we have been recounting. The case of G, and scores of others like it in
this respect, should lead parents to a policy of reticence concerning
their expectations of their children, until it is certain that these
expectations have a chance of being realized. Fortunately, the great
majority of children of very successful parents never have a problem of
this kind, because of the tendency to selective mating and the laws of
heredity. Most of the children of gifted parents are themselves
sufficiently gifted to perform the expected tasks as a matter of course.
Not all children of gifted fathers are, however, gifted, because other
ancestors, some of whom may be but average persons, are likely to
contribute to the mental status of the child. Yet according to the
customs of our country, it is usually the ability of the father that
determines the social _milieu_ and the educational tradition to which
the children are subject. Thus, the son of a corporation lawyer, who has
inherited the intelligence of a stupid but handsome grandmother and the
educational traditions of a brilliant father, is in a sorry plight,
unless the facts of human nature are expertly and sympathetically
understood in his family.
In the case of G, the special talents in drawing and music, combined
with average intellectual ability, made it possible to suggest very
satisfactory adjustments. The idea of college was abandoned, and plans
were made to pursue education in art and music, which had already been
undertaken in a limited way, with excellent success. From the point of
view of heredity, it is interesting to know that one of G’s
grandfathers, a chemist by profession, played a church organ every
Sabbath as a recreation, and spent leisure hours making drawings, many
of which are still kept as ornaments.
The psychograph of M shows special defect in musical capacity, combined
with very superior general intelligence. M, a schoolboy, was recently
brought for mental tests at the age of 10 years, because of disagreement
among his teachers as to his mental ability. The regular classroom
teacher believed M should be given a double promotion because of his
brilliant work in reading, arithmetic, and elementary science. The
teacher of music held that he should repeat the work of the grade in
which he then was, as an utter failure from her point of view. The shop
teacher took a midway position, saying that his work seemed fair, and
warranted promotion, but no more, to the grade above, in due order.
[Illustration:
FIG. 26.—Psychograph of M, showing special defect in music, combined
with very superior general intelligence.
]
M’s psychograph explains the differences of opinion thus expressed by
teachers. It is seen that in intellect he ranks well up in the top
percentile of all children born, while in musical capacities he ranks in
the lower percentiles. The difficulties in shop work arose from the fact
that M is left-handed, and was at that time being trained into
right-handedness by the teachers. This made him awkward in shop work,
which he cordially detested.
M’s IQ is 151, which accounts for his superiority in reading, science,
and arithmetic. He will not be able to learn music, or to appreciate it,
and to deprive him of his double promotion on this account seems
contrary to his best interests.
XII. CAPACITY TO APPRECIATE MUSIC
Though it is probably true that those who can produce good music usually
appreciate music also, the reverse need not be true. There are many who
are sensitive to music and are greatly satisfied by it, who have not the
ability to become musicians.
Music as taught in the schools is concerned chiefly with learning to
sing. It would seem that some time might profitably be devoted to
hearing good music, and learning to form preferences.
The keen satisfaction which comes to the extremely sensitive has been
expressed by some of them in words. Schumann said of another musician,
“He who has once heard Henselt can never forget his playing; these
pieces still haunt my memory like the recollection of a parterre of
flowers.” And again, “The veiled enjoyment of music which one does not
hear, has something magical in it.” Berlioz has given us this glimpse of
his delight: “Last night I dreamt of music, this morning I recalled it
all and fell into one of those supernal ecstasies.... Believe me, dear
friend, the being who could write such miracles of transcendant melody
would be more than mortal.”
Stanton questioned the talented and untalented relatives of musicians as
to the rôle played by music in their daily lives. Many showing superior
talent reported that music in some form seemed vital to their program of
living. It was referred to by them as “a daily relaxation from
business,” “a great source of courage, a spiritual tonic,” and as
“absolutely paramount.” One person used the word “hunger,” in describing
the longing which ensued upon being deprived of music. There may be
people capable of such satisfaction in music, that they would choose
between bread and music, if hard put to it, not without a struggle.
REFERENCES
AGNEW, M.—“The Auditory Imagery of Great Composers”; _University of
Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
BERNFIELD, S.—“Zur Psychologie der Unmusikalischen”; _Archives für das
gesammte Psychologie_, 1915.
BOGGS, L.—“Studies in Absolute Pitch”; _American Journal of
Psychology_, 1907.
COPP, E. F.—“Musical Ability”; _Journal of Heredity_, 1916.
EDGREN, J. G.—“Amusie (Musikalische Aphasie)”; _Deutsche Zeitschrift
für Nervenheilkunde_, 1894.
GATEWOOD, E. L.—“Individual Differences in Finger Reaction”;
_Psychological Monographs_, 1920.
GAW, E. A.—“A Survey of Musical Talent in a Music School”; _University
of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
GAW, E. A.—“Some Individual Difficulties in the Study of Music”;
_Journal of Educational Research_, 1922.
HANSEN, C. F.—“Serial Action as a Basic Measure of Motor Capacity”;
_University of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
KNOCK, C. J.—“Visual Training of the Pitch of the Voice”; _University
of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
KRIES, J. VON—“Ueber das absolut Gehör”; _Zeitschrift für
Psychologie_, 1907.
LEE, V.—“Varieties of Musical Experience”; _North American Review_,
1918.
PANNENBERG, H. J., and W. A.—“Die Psychologie des Musikers”;
_Zeitschrift für Psychologie_, 1915.
PLATT, W.—_Child Music_; Simpkins, London, 1905.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—“Prüfung der Musikalität”; _Zeitschrift für Psychologie_,
1920.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—“Das musikalische Wunderkind”; _Zeitschrift für
pädagogische Psychologie_, 1918.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—_Nyviegyhazi: Psychologische Analyse eines musikalisch
hervorragenden Kindes_; Veit u. Co., Leipzig, 1916.
RICHET, C.—“Note sur un remarquable précocité musicale”; _Congrès
Internationale de Psychologie_, 1901.
RUPP, H.—“Ueber die Prüfung musikalischer Fähigkeiten”; _Zeitschrift
für angewandte Psychologie_, 1914.
SCHUSSLER, H.—“Das unmusikalische Kind”; _Zeitschrift für angewandte
Psychologie_, 1916.
SEASHORE, C. E.—_The Psychology of Musical Talent_; Silver, Burdett
and Co., New York, 1919.
STANTON, H. M.—“The Inheritance of Special Musical Capacities”;
_University of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
CHAPTER IX
MISCELLANEOUS
I. SPECIAL FUNCTIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN LONG STUDIED
There are various mental functions which are now thought to be largely
special, which have not yet been studied sufficiently to warrant
extended discussion of each, yet which merit notice as such if for no
other reason than that attention should be directed to the desirability
of studying their place in intellectual organization. Some of these,
like chess-playing, will not be discussed here, as they are at present
but remotely connected with prescribed education. We shall, therefore,
comment upon but some of these, giving such facts and theories as are
available in the case of each.
II. LEFT-HANDEDNESS
The hand is rated by students of the history of civilization as one of
the most important determinants of man’s rise from savagery. The loss of
even a finger is a handicap recognized in such times of stress, as when
men are drafted for war. With the great majority of people, the two
hands are unequal in strength and accuracy, the right being the major
member. With a small minority of children there is, however, a
predisposition to use the left hand, instead of the right hand, as the
major member. This is a special condition which must be taken into
account by educators.
According to different investigators, the proportion of left-handed
children ranges from 2 to 6 per cent. The disagreements arise from the
variety of criteria used and of populations sampled. The median figure
of 4 per cent seems, for several reasons most probable, as the general
proportion of left-handedness.
Many theories as to the origin of handedness have been formulated. It
has been argued that handedness is not innate, but acquired from the
mother’s habitual method of carrying the infant on one arm rather than
on the other, so that one of its arms is pinioned against the mother
habitually, and gets comparatively little exercise. The theory has been
advanced that since the heart is the most vital organ of the body, and
is located on the left side, the shield to protect it was held by the
left hand, permitting the right hand to attain greater dexterity with
the spear, the advantage thus acquired being transmitted to offspring.
Also, it has been proposed that the center of gravity of the viscera,
the position of the subclavian arteries, cerebral asymmetry, and greater
blood supply to one cerebral hemisphere may be, respectively, the origin
of handedness. All of these theories are unsatisfactory, for reasons
which have been well stated by the original investigators. There remains
to be considered the proposal that handedness is determined by ocular
dominance. The right eye is the better seeing eye in about 96 per cent
of people. As vision develops long before muscular coördination in the
infant, the proposal is that the hand is brought to coöperate with the
dominant eye. The disproof of this theory is that among the congenitally
blind the proportion of right-handed to left-handed is not materially
different from that among seeing persons.
The origin of handedness is, therefore, not understood, and it is not
known why about 4 per cent of the population should show dominance of
the left hand. It must be considered that handedness is of many degrees,
from extreme right-handedness, through ambidexterity, to extreme
left-handedness. All right-handed persons are not equally right-handed,
and all left-handed persons are not equally left-handed.
Trustworthy studies of the heredity of handedness indicate that it is
inherited. Ramaley studied 610 parents and 1130 children, and arrived at
the conclusion that left-handedness is inherited (as a Mendelian
recessive), and is potential in about one-sixth of the population.
It is obvious that modern appliances are adapted to the right-handed,
and that right-handedness is regarded generally as “the way to be.”
Teachers and parents feel it their duty to compel the child to use the
right hand.
Studies of left-handed children who have been “changed over” through
education or accident to the right hand, and of right-handed children
changed over through accident to the left hand, lead to the conclusion
that among them there is more nervousness and a greater number of speech
defects than would be allowed by the usual course of events. Stammering
is evidently a complication in some cases of modified handedness. The
physiology of this connection is obscure. In view of the fact that
speech defects occur to so great an extent in “changing over,” and that
we do not know the physiology of handedness, it seems by all means
wisest not to try to modify handedness where it is very pronounced. A
very right-handed person, fortunate in being with the majority, may, by
using for a week his left hand instead of his right, get an idea of what
is suffered by a very left-handed child being compelled to use the right
hand.
It has been reported that there is an undue proportion of left-handed
persons among criminals, mental defectives, and the insane. These
reports require careful verification. Criminals, mental defectives, and
the insane have been much more carefully scrutinized than have the
superior in intellect and character, or even than the average
population. The present writer has, during recent surveys, noticed
left-handed performance repeatedly in very gifted children, but has not
computed the proportion. Until further scrutinies have been made, it
cannot be said positively that left-handedness is correlated with
organic inferiority.
Perfectly satisfactory tests of handedness have not yet been agreed
upon. Jones proposed some years ago to measure congenital handedness by
means of a brachiometer. This is an instrument for measuring the bones
of the forearm, and by its use Jones hoped to detect handedness “at the
moment of birth” as well as on any subsequent day of life. These hopes
have not been realized in the findings of others who have given the
method fair trial, as Beeley did. Tapping, with the wrist movement,
tapping with fingers, tracing, spontaneous rubbing, throwing and picking
up, winding, and cutting with scissors are the most promising among
tests so far tried out, to discover whether a child is congenitally
left-handed. Gripping, as with the dynamometer, does not seem to
correlate so well with known facts, as do the other tests of movement.
Left-handedness as an element in individuality becomes conspicuous in
school procedure especially in writing, drawing, shop work, or any work
where the hand is an important factor in the performance. It may become
conspicuous in vocational endeavor, either as an asset or a handicap. In
a few kinds of performance, such as baseball or tennis, left-handedness
gives an advantage, all other things being equal. In most professional
pursuits (with the possible exception of dentistry and surgery because
of manufactured appliances) left-handedness is a matter of indifference.
In work with machines left-handedness is likely to be a handicap,
because machines are “right-handed.” Even scissors, eggbeaters,
typewriters, and other common appliances of office and home are
“right-handed.”
Left-handedness as a handicap in the absence of rational consideration
of it, is illustrated in an extreme fashion by the case of a young
pickpocket, remanded for mental examination upon second offense. This
boy was of average general intelligence, extremely left-handed, and a
stammerer. He had left school as soon as the law allowed, with a record
of chronic truancy behind him. He explained that he had always “hated
school,” because the teachers tried to make him right-handed, and
because he was so ashamed of his stammering. Obtaining his working
papers, he had first tried factory work, but the machines were all
right-handed. He had then taken “a job” as an office boy, but he had to
abandon that because he could not adequately answer the telephone, or
converse with those who questioned him. Being “fired,” he found a place
as packer of china in a department store, but had a fight with a fellow
worker, who mimicked him, and was dismissed. Soon thereafter, needing
money, he saw an opportunity to abstract a purse from a convenient
pocket, and did so. The success of this venture led to others like it,
until he was apprehended and sent to the reformatory. Having served his
time, he came out with this record added to his original difficulties,
and drifted again into picking pockets.
The history of this boy shows the adaptation to social environment of an
organism struggling by trial and error methods, without rational
guidance. A left-handed man can pick pockets as well as anyone else
(perhaps better), and speech defect is here no hindrance, since perfect
silence is observed in such pursuits.
This boy might have had a very different career if school and society
had given a different kind of consideration to his individuality.
III. MIRROR WRITING
A certain number of children, variously estimated, write backwards,
beginning at the right of the page. This is called “mirror writing,” and
is apparently a function of left-handedness. Baldwin’s description is
succinct.
“Mirror writing is the form of inscription which arises from tracing
words with the left hand by an exact reduplication of the movements of
the right hand, in a symmetrical way from the central point in front of
the body, out toward the left. It produces a form of reversed writing
which cannot be read until it is seen in a mirror. Many left-handed
children tend to write in this way. Some adults, on taking a pen to
write with the left hand, find they can write only in this way. Even
those, like myself, to whom the movements seem, when thought of in
visual terms, quite confusing and impossible, yet find when they try to
write with both hands together, in the air, from a central point right
and left, that the left hand mirror writing movements are very natural
and easy.”
Beeley conducted a survey, by questionnaire addressed to teachers, of
the prevalence of mirror writers in the elementary schools of Chicago.
He thus found one mirror writer to every 2500 children. Gordon by actual
tests of writing found a larger proportion of mirror writers, about
one-half of one per cent. Among feeble-minded children in special
schools the percentage appears to be much greater, in fact, about
seventeen times as great, according to Gordon’s findings.
All investigators agree that mirror writers are almost always
left-handed by test, though the writing may be done with the left hand,
or with the right. As to the hand used in producing the writing there is
disagreement among investigators. Gordon found that “the mirror writers
were nearly always left-handed children who wrote with the right hand.”
Beeley says: “All of the mirror writers write mirror-wise with the left
hand. The only instances of right-hand mirror writing found were a few
upper-grade pupils who having seen this kind of writing naturally
executed by mirror writers, attempted to imitate the same.”
The origin of mirror writing is not fully explained as yet. It is
probably the natural mode for left-handed persons, as attempts to write
with both hands indicate. Yet not all left-handed persons acquire this
habit. Obviously the mirror writer is not corrected in his fault by
notice of the discrepancies between the visual and the motor. It may be
that those left-handed children who become mirror writers are usually
deficient in visual perception of letters or words, or generally
deficient. That there are, however, bright children who form this habit
is shown by the surveys made.
Samples of mirror writing by school children are shown in Figure 27. In
order to correct the difficulty, visual control of movement must be
cultivated. Attempts to correct by changing over to the right hand are
injudicious, for the reasons cited under the discussion of
left-handedness.
[Illustration:
FIG. 27.—Showing mirror writing by public school pupils. (From
Beeley’s _An Experimental Study of Left-Handedness_. Reproduced by
courtesy of the University of Chicago Press.)
]
In securing the control of visual perception and imagery, it is well to
have the child write slowly and carefully from a copy, not being allowed
for some time to write spontaneously. At first, particularly, the
teacher may guide the child’s hands and urge him to notice in detail how
another writes. Of course, the best educational treatment is that which
never permits the development of the habit in the first place. This
could be accomplished by careful watching of all left-handed children,
at the very beginning of their attempts to learn to write. As each
letter and figure is taught for the first time, the child whose natural
impulse is to reverse it could be made conscious of his error, and could
be drilled in the coördinations of hand and eye which produce the
correct response. In the very large beginners’ classes which are
customary in the public schools, such careful attention to the needs of
individuals is here, as in other respects, difficult to give.
IV. MECHANICAL ABILITY
In 1915 Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue, working with dependent
children in a county of New York State, used tests of various mental
functions, including a test of ability to put simple mechanisms
together. These correlations showed that whereas tests of ability to
handle language and tests of general intelligence (Binet-Simon) gave
positive coefficients as high as .90, the test of mechanical ability
yielded a coefficient much lower, when correlated with these. They
therefore suggested that mechanical ingenuity might be a relatively
specialized form of capacity, not reliably predictable from knowledge of
general intelligence.
Subsequently, one of these investigators, Stenquist, made extended
tests, and standardized a measuring scale to gauge mechanical ability.
Measuring individuals for general intelligence and for mechanical
ability, a positive coefficient of correlation amounting to about .40 is
ordinarily obtained. This relationship is obviously not close. Ability
to put mechanisms together is not reliably predictable from status in
general intelligence. The chances are, however, that a pupil who is
superior in general intelligence will score higher in mechanical
ability, than a generally stupid pupil will score. There is no negative
or compensatory relation between the two functions, as is sometimes
assumed.
Wider studies, including tests of _learning_ mechanical processes, will
give further light upon the extent to which ability to deal with
concrete mechanisms coheres with general intelligence, and to what
extent comprehension of mechanical principles is so correlated. It may
be that the correlation between performances in Stenquist’s tests and in
tests like those used to measure general intelligence is reduced through
factors like selective attention operating over a period of years. It
may be that the relatively unintelligent become relatively more
proficient in concrete acts, like assembling a bicycle bell or putting a
lock together, because they have not the degree of intelligence that
would enable them to prefer reading as an activity. Thus when 40
fifteen-year-old boys, 20 of whom have IQ’s (Stanford-Binet) from 150 to
170, and 20 of whom have IQ’s from 90 to 100, are faced with a series of
tasks similar to those mentioned above, those of lower IQ might
conceivably produce a record equal to or surpassing that of the first
group, because their ability had enabled them to practice only tasks at
a comparatively low level of _general_ capacity. With an equal amount of
attention to these matters, not previously of much interest to them, the
boys of 150 to 170 IQ might surpass their competitors greatly. In a test
of cake-baking, a hundred housewives, selected at random on a given
date, will surpass the hundred most eminent men of science; but not
after both groups have attended to the matter for an equal length of
time.
The tests of mechanical ability do not as yet eliminate the influence of
mechanical _interest_ upon the outcome of the test. Extremely high
intelligence may well be relatively little interested in concrete
materials and processes, preferring to manipulate ideas. Thus on a given
date lower intelligence, long acting on that level, may surpass. Yet the
higher IQ may really be capable under incentive, of surpassing in work
with things as well as in work with ideas. Tests of _learning_
mechanical processes would, therefore, be a most valuable supplement to
what has already been done in this field.
Great inventors of mechanical devices are probably, as a group, very far
above the average in general intelligence. This statement cannot be made
with positive certainty, as the general intelligence of a large number
of inventors has never been measured. It rests only on deduction from
the fact that invention evidently calls for a high degree of selective
thinking, and of interest in problem situations. Even “invention by
accident” which may occasionally occur, calls for a high degree of
ability to “notice” a new element in the familiar situation, in relation
to other elements.
V. ABILITY TO LEAD AND HANDLE PEOPLE
It has been suggested that executive ability, in the sense of ability to
deal effectively with human relationships, is specialized; that it is
not closely correlated with IQ. Very few quantitative studies of the
matter have been undertaken, largely because of the lack of means to
gauge objectively “ability to handle people.” It is true that there
exist persons whose ability to deal effectively with human relationships
has stood the test of life—executives in professional bodies, in
business, and in government. These persons have not, however, been
subjected to mental examination. Their time is so valuable that
investigators perhaps hesitate to encroach upon it. Even if this could
be done, we should nevertheless lack proper data for correlational
study. We should also need to know how many persons of an equal degree
of intelligence had _failed_ to succeed as executives. This would be
difficult to discover.
Terman has given us a few facts, from his studies of superior children,
which tend to indicate the relation between leadership and intelligence,
in childhood. According to teachers’ judgments of leadership, children
of over 120 IQ are much oftener leaders than children of less
intelligence are, and they are usually well liked by other children,
even when not designated as leaders. Very few children over 120 IQ are
judged by teachers to be “unpopular.”
From observations of the frequency with which children of high IQ are
leaders of other children, the present writer suspects that there is an
optimum range of IQ, within which popular leadership is extremely
frequent, but above which it is very improbable. The optimum range for
leadership appears to fall between 110 and 130, when the total group has
a median IQ of 100. Children of IQ over 160 seem to have little chance
of leading their fellow children, when the median IQ of the group is
100. Children of IQ over 180 have almost no chance, in the observations
of the present writer, to be popular leaders. Of the four New York
children, previously mentioned in other chapters, measuring over 180 IQ
(Stanford-Binet), only one is an organizer of fellow children, being
designated by her teachers as “the most popular child in the school.”
This child functions as leader of a group of highly selected children,
with a median IQ of near 120. In a group of unselected children she
probably could not achieve leadership, although highly endowed with
physical and temperamental traits which favor leadership.
Why should too much intelligence militate against the achievement of
popular leadership? It is clear that in order to organize and lead
others, the individual must comprehend and share the interests of those
led, and must in turn be understood by them. He must not consider their
pursuits to be fatuous and without substance. They must not regard his
interests as eccentric and unfathomable. Also, he must not experience
too keenly the impact of the conflicting conations of those about him.
To perceive and to experience too sharply the disappointments, misdeeds,
punishments, and aspirations of others tend to disqualify for executive
leadership.
The child of IQ over 160 tends to fall above the optimum range for
leadership, for all of these reasons, in groups of unselected children.
He is not interested in mumble-the-peg. They are not interested in the
solar system. His interests are those of persons far beyond his age and
size. But they will not accept his leadership because he does not “look
like” a fitting captain for them. Thus only in very highly selected
groups can such a child achieve leadership, that is, in groups which
approximate his own IQ.
Too much intelligence thus tends to disqualify for executive leadership.
The most intelligent persons born will usually be found leading only
highly selected groups. Too little intelligence also undoubtedly tends
to disqualify. It will be a nice problem to determine experimentally
just what may be the optimum range of IQ for leadership of typical
persons. Correlation is, of course, reduced by the various influences
which we have been discussing. “Social intelligence” is in all
probability not a specialized capacity, but merely an optimum section of
the general intelligence curve (determined by ratio to the median
intelligence of the led), combined with certain amounts of physical and
temperamental traits.
These temperamental and physical traits are extremely important. The
flighty, the unenthusiastic, the shy, the overbearing, the ungenerous,
the irritable are not well fitted to organize and lead, even when their
intelligence is optimum. Likewise, the small, the commonplace in
coloring, the undistinguished in features, the ill-kempt, the shrill of
voice, are handicapped by their physical characteristics. The executive
leader is he who combines optimum intelligence with enthusiasm,
generosity, cheerfulness, and other favorable temperamental traits in
the optimum degree, and who is large, forceful in manner and voice, and
distinguished in contour and coloring. Facility in handling people and
getting their allegiance, is due, therefore, to total personality,
mental and physical, of which intellect is but one determinant.
Correlations between executive ability and general intelligence will
thus be greatly reduced from unity, because temperament and physique are
far from perfectly correlated with general intelligence.
REFERENCES
BEELEY, A. L.—_An Experimental Study of Left-Handedness_; University
of Chicago Press, 1918.
DOWNEY, J. E.—“On the Reading and Writing of Mirror Script”;
_Psychological Review_, 1914.
GORDON, H.—“Left-Handedness and Mirror Writing, Especially among
Defective Children”; _Brain_, 1921.
GOWIN, E. B.—_The Executive and His Control of Men_; The Macmillan
Co., New York, 1915.
STENQUIST, J. L.—_Stenquist Assembling Tests of General Mechanical
Ability_; Board of Education, New York, 1921.
TAUSSIG, F. W.—_Inventors and Money Makers_; The Macmillan Co., New
York, 1895.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“Intelligence and Its Uses”; _Harper’s Magazine_,
1920.
CHAPTER X
INDIVIDUALITY AND EDUCATION
I. THE VALUES OF INDIVIDUALITY
If we try to imagine what the world would be like if there were absolute
uniformity among human beings, we realize anew the precious worth of
individuality. It is marvelous that each one of us is unique. In all the
generations there has never been another just like anyone, and there
will never be exactly his like again. Each is, strictly speaking,
irreplaceable.
By this inexhaustible diversity of mind and body life is faceted, and
gives off sparkle instead of dullness. So far from being irritated by
the idiosyncracies of our fellows, we ought to cherish their variety as
a thing that makes life worth living. Instead of striving to force all
children to learn the same things, at the same time, in the same way,
because that would be cheap and convenient, we ought to foster
individuality in its socially valuable aspects, so that the charm of
human contact may be increased. To the connoisseur of human nature, the
suggestion that all children be reduced to similarity is as dreadful as
the suggestion to the connoisseur of art that all pictures and intaglios
be turned out identical, by a uniform factory process.
Nor is the value of individuality limited to the æsthetics of
personality, and to social intercourse. The economic peculiarities of
the world, as we have it, permit the exercise of abilities in great
variety. Organized society needs and will use capacity of all degrees,
from that of a man who can load sand on a carrier, and be satisfied
thereby, to that of the man who can with satisfaction work out a new
theory of inflammation, or construct a drama to interpret existence
anew.
Failure to know the facts concerning the distribution of mental traits,
the organization of intellect, and the laws of heredity and variation,
leads to much wasted effort on the part of all who deal by profession
with people. The most frequent error is that of demanding that others
adopt one’s own religious beliefs, standard of living, reaction time, or
politics—usually with the idea that they will be greatly benefited
thereby. Another common error of theory is that general happiness would
be increased if some force could be established great enough to hold all
down to the same plane of work, leisure, and reward. In education it has
been assumed that justice would be well served by prescribing the same
curriculum, at the same rate, at the same time, for every child.
If the uniformity of thought and action, to which these theories and
practices tend, could be secured, the result would be deadening. Such
uniformity cannot, however, be achieved, because of the biological
forces of heredity and variation. The formulæ governing the interplay of
these forces are little known, and they therefore lie outside of human
control.
Many thinkers believe that nothing would be lost and much be gained for
human welfare, by cutting off the variants who fall low in intellect and
stability, and by increasing the number of those who fall highest, on
the curve of distribution. However, it is possible to take, and perhaps
to defend, the view that this would be meddlesome rather than helpful.
Civilization becomes complex through the discoveries and inventions of
superior deviates. It was they who invented wheel and lever, clock and
calendar, court and statute book. They discovered the use of
electricity, gravity, and steam. When moral life and industrial life
become very complicated, great numbers of men are unable to meet the
situations devised, and perish mentally, morally, and physically. Law
may become so intricate that only the steadiest can suffer its
restrictions. Mechanical and chemical contrivances may grow so numerous
and complex that typical human nature cannot cope with them. Would it be
better, then, to end invention at its source, by eliminating superior
deviates? Or would mankind thereby lose other gifts, wholly benign for
all, which only the superior deviate can bestow? In the absence of the
highly endowed, would there not be a return to barbarism? And, if so,
would the greatest good of the greatest number be thus promoted? Or
should the welfare of the majority give way as a social ideal to the
welfare of the best—the most capable, the most upright, the most
enduring? Is it possible to evolve a social order in which the greatest
good of all can be well served, since biological inequalities are so
very great? These are questions for social and educational philosophy.
Men of science labor to acquire the knowledge that would give power to
alter, at will, the shape of the curve of distribution for mental
capacities. Such knowledge might work more changes in the world than
have been wrought by knowledge of chemical formulæ or of electricity,
but its right use would call for a wisdom and philosophical foresight
which men at present probably do not have. The conditions and the
theories that confront us in education call on us at present, as a
matter of fact, to provide for the whole enormous range of capacities,
general and special.
II. COMPULSORY EDUCATION
It is useful to recall that for centuries after mankind reached a point
where prolonged formal education was available, attendance upon
instruction was voluntary. Those who wished to learn what could be
taught of the arts and sciences, hired tutors. It is true that the
public ceremonies may, perhaps, be considered to have represented
compulsory education, even in primitive times. However, education in the
sense of several years of devotion to learning what men have previously
done, thought, and devised, was formerly a private matter. The educated,
who could communicate by writing, calculate in large numbers, see the
present to some extent in the light of the past, and engage in even more
complicated intellectual work, formed a small and highly selected group.
They were individuals who loved learning, and their median IQ was
doubtless far above 100.
As the white peoples of the earth, in parts of Europe and America,
accumulated wealth, and more and more of those who cared to do so could
buy education, political power began to be decentralized. Generous men
of high intelligence conceived the idea that government should be
representative. Political democracy with manhood suffrage was
established in the United States. It was then seen that political
democracy cannot be sustained on the basis of private education, and
public money was appropriated to establish public schools.
Merely to establish free schools did not, however, solve the problem of
education for a democracy. The leaders of thought and action found that
not only must opportunity be provided, but many must be forced to take
advantage of it. Compulsory education laws were therefore passed in many
of our states, and they stand upon their statute books to-day. Truant
officers became a part of the regular school staff, their duty being to
apprehend all children between statutory ages, and bring them forcibly
to school. The City of New York, for instance, now supports 308 truant
officers, who are constantly kept busy by future citizens who wish to
avoid education.
Why do they wish to avoid education? The reasons are various. Some of
them avoid school because they have not enough clothing to wear; some
because their parents need their earnings; some because they are ill;
some because they are temperamentally unsuited to school discipline. The
most important single cause of truancy is, however, that the curriculum
does not provide for individual differences.
The curriculum upon which all children are now required by law to
attend, is that which was formulated when only a few selected children
were educated. Our schools are reading schools, and they teach abstract
subject matter to a very great extent, much of which has no tangible
relation to the life of many children. Children of IQ over 120 take
pleasure in the abstract subject matter of grammar, mathematics,
geography, and history. Children of IQ under 80 are made miserable
thereby.
Not only is the curriculum not adapted to individual differences in
general intelligence, but it is far less adapted to individual
differences in special defects and aptitudes. The child who can never
learn to sing is compelled nevertheless to pursue singing, even after
school hours. The child who cannot learn reading by the method generally
used is still treated by that method and no other. The schools were
established with an undifferentiated curriculum, which they have tried
to force upon intellects of an enormous range of diversity. Their
purpose, so benign, has resulted in extraordinary cruelties and wastes.
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE FOR SCHOOL PROGRESS
If we examine mentally the large numbers of retardates in any public
school where attendance is compulsory, we find that by far the majority
of them are inferior in general intelligence. A child of superior
general intelligence (IQ) is seldom found among retardates. Of children
of 120 IQ and over, Terman reports that they are almost invariably at
least up to grade. Whatever the vicissitudes of fate—illness, absence,
special disability—a child of superior general capacity manages to hold
his own, at least.
It is not true, however, that the superior child is allowed, under the
undifferentiated curriculum, to make full use of his power. He is
compelled to slow down to the typical progress of his group, and to use
only a portion of his capacity for learning. It is rare to find a
superior child who is doing “a full day’s work” in school, because the
tasks assigned do not call for maximum effort. Superior children could
easily do much more than is allowed.
General intelligence is, then, the single most important factor for
school progress. The same may be said of progress in vocational careers.
The life success of a human being may be said to depend upon general
intelligence, character, health, and opportunity (including the factor
of sex). If any of these factors is reduced to zero, so that the
individual is totally lacking in intelligence, character, health, or
opportunity there can be no achievement. The order of importance of the
various factors is probably that in which they have been mentioned, with
general intelligence certainly at the top of the list. Intelligence may
create character, opportunity, and even health, but none of these can
create intelligence.
IV. SPECIAL ABILITIES AND DISABILITIES AS DETERMINANTS OF SCHOOL
PROGRESS
As before stated in these pages, no census has ever been taken of
special aptitudes and defects, in the functions which we have been
discussing, and which are important for progress through the elementary
school. No one can tell whether any have been advanced on the basis of a
special gift. No one can say how many children are retarded, because of
a specialized disability, though we know from reports rendered, that
some pupils become retarded in school status through special failure in
one or two respects.
The children described under the topics of special retardation in
reading and in arithmetic, in this volume, are illustrative of the way
in which specialized defect contributes to retardation in school status.
Without passable mastery of these “tool” subjects a child cannot proceed
through the elementary school. His progress is halted, much as it would
be if he were deficient in general intelligence.
It is quite possible, on the other hand, that children may be
occasionally overrated as to intellect by teachers, who are deceived by
conspicuous talent in a special function. Coy, who studied for two years
a class of highly intelligent children in Columbus, has given an account
of a boy who was thus overrated. When the children were being selected
for the special class described, this boy was sent by his teacher to
join the group. She considered that he must be “very bright,” “since he
could draw cartoons, play the ukelele, and sing.” He was said by the art
teacher to have more ability than any other child in the building. He
was retained in the special class by the investigator, but he was not
able to do good work there. His IQ on three annual testings stood as
114, 119, and 120. (The other children in the group possessed general
intelligence clustering about an IQ of approximately 135.) This boy
surpassed the others in music, acting, and drawing, but “his ability to
reason was far below the class level,” and he could not compete
successfully in general intellectual work. His teachers had been misled
by his special gifts to recommend him as a child of surpassing
intellect.
V. EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO INDIVIDUALIZE EDUCATION
Official administrative recognition of individual differences among
public school pupils began with the extremely stupid, whom we call
feeble-minded. This was natural, because the feeble-minded are incapable
of even approximately normal progress, and this, added to their tendency
to become disciplinary problems, renders them an intolerable burden to
teachers in the regular grades.
As long ago as 1872 we find that attention was called to the
“pedagogical misfits,” in proceedings at professional teachers’ meetings
in the United States. By 1890 the city of Cleveland had established two
special classes for children presenting particular difficulties of
discipline. Special classes for extremely dull children (the
feeble-minded) have passed the stage of experiment. They are now an
accepted part of the school system of many cities in this country, and a
few state departments of education have undertaken to establish such
special classes for districts not so favorably situated as cities are.
The relative money cost of thus educating the most stupid children
produced in our population is great, and the returns upon the investment
are uncertain. We need careful studies of the cost of educating the
dull, as compared with the cost of educating the superior, in the light
of the returns from education, both to the public and to the individuals
taught. The complexity of such study calls for much patience and
ingenuity.
Special classes for children of very superior general intelligence, who
are as far above the average as the feeble-minded are below, are at
present much discussed by American educators. Such classes have actually
been established in a few school systems. These are still considered to
be experimental, but it surely will not be very long before official
administrative recognition will be widely given to the needs of pupils
whose natural rate of progress is over twice as rapid as that of the
average child. Abroad, Germany has already undertaken education for
gifted children as a special project of the public schools, in
recognition, no doubt, of the extent to which national rehabilitation
will be dependent on the training of the able. Contrary to pre-war
policy, German educators are now seeking, by the method of mental tests,
for superior mental endowment regardless of social-economic status, and
even to some extent regardless of sex.
In general it is true that the provisions in the United States are for
deviates so extreme in all capacities that their maladjustment to
typical procedure creates a troublesome school problem on the one hand,
and on the other a burden to the conscience of those who administer
education. Classroom teachers demand that special attention be given to
those who are chronically unpromotable and out of order, while
educational psychologists insist upon the waste of ability that ensues
from allowing gifted children to idle through the curriculum. For
deviates of less degree there is not much provision. A few cities, of
which Oakland, California, may be mentioned as an outstanding example,
have adopted a three-rates-of-progress system, in which the children of
typical ability (the great majority) proceed at a median rate, the
lowest quartile (exclusive of the very lowest percentile) proceeding
more slowly, and the highest quartile more rapidly. The system provides
a flexibility far in advance of the ordinary one-rate-of-progress
system, allowing for individual differences in general intelligence.
Little attention has been given as yet to the matter of individualizing
public education for children who show special talents or defects. Some
years ago the superintendent of schools in Munich requested the teachers
of certain grades throughout the city, to ask each child to draw two
sketches: one from a model, and the other a free sketch. These were
sorted for the purpose of finding exceptional talent in drawing. A
certain per cent of the children showing this special gift were sought
out and encouraged. Particular attention was given to the development of
their talents.
Similar instances of official attempts to gauge and foster special
talents are extremely rare. The experiment at Winnetka, Illinois, is of
this order. In Winnetka there is a flexible promotion system, wherein
pupils “pass” in a subject whenever they have completed the work
therein. A pupil may be in different grades in different subjects. His
whole school career need not be jeopardized by a single weakness, and if
he has a special strength he is permitted to develop it as original
nature would dictate.
At first thought it might seem that a public school system would be
thrown into confusion by such a scheme. In Winnetka there are thirty to
thirty-five pupils in a classroom. How can programs be arranged to suit
the needs of deviating children, without much extra equipment?
Here it is necessary to recall that the majority of these children are
_typical_. The middle 50 per cent of all children born deviate but
slightly from the type of the race, in all their mental functions. They
do not call for special adjustments. On either side of these, deviating
more widely toward less and greater, run the remainder of the children,
in very rapidly decreasing frequencies. Those who need a very wide
latitude in school organization constitute possibly 20 per cent of all,
the highest 10 per cent, and the lowest 10 per cent, in general or
special capacity. The problem does not seem so vast, when we recall the
shape of the curve of distribution; and the comparative infrequency of
extremely unusual children.
VI. THE COST OF FOSTERING INDIVIDUALITY
The cost of individualizing education acts as a deterrent, even when the
desirability is fully recognized. Compulsory education for all the
children of all the people is expensive. A nation must be wealthy in
order to carry it through. To maintain every child born into the social
order for fourteen to sixteen years without earnings, and to pay from
public taxation for his education for eight to ten or more of those
years, is an enterprise upon which few societies of any time have
ventured. Nevertheless, if democracy is to survive, and especially if it
is to improve, as a form of government, universal education on a large
scale is basic. Self-government, in the highly complicated environment
which has been evolved, depends on literacy and other knowledge,
requiring long instruction, even for youth of average ability.
What then of the great numbers of those who deviate in various degrees
below the average in capacity for learning? The social order needs and
will utilize their services. The economics of their presence in the
republic is not a much more difficult problem than under other forms of
government. It is the politics of their presence that causes concern
under a democracy; for they are enfranchised, yet without learning they
are political dependents. They stand at the mercy of any catch word
tossed at them, with results which have raised on every hand an earnest
searching of democracy.
For example, this question has been raised: Is it possible for education
to prepare the lower half of the distribution curve for self-government?
Considering recent discoveries as to the mental capacity which
characterizes the lower half of the population when adult, is it
possible that education will ever be able to nullify the charlatan
influence of demagogues, whose appeal is to prejudice and cupidity?
These questions remain unanswered. In the meantime the great experiment
of compulsory education is under way. The expense of it is kept down by
teaching the children in large groups of thirty to fifty or over, the
same lessons, in the same way, at the same time.
What would be the actual money cost of providing for individual
differences in capacities, general and special? Few data to answer this
question have been furnished. In Winnetka the cost of education is
reported as not increased. This condition is doubtless exceptional. As
previously stated, the money cost of individualizing education for the
feeble-minded has been considerable. We have the figures from
Cincinnati, and we derive from them that the cost of educating a
feeble-minded child (one falling into the lowest one or two per cent in
the distribution of general intelligence) in a special class, is over
twice as great per annum as is the cost of educating an average child in
the regular grades. For a feeble-minded child in a special class in
Cincinnati, during the year 1917 to 1918, the money cost per annum was
$83, while for a typical child in the regular grades it was $35.
The increased cost results from the fact that when education is
individualized, the number of pupils occupying a room and taught by a
teacher is about fifteen, instead of the regular number of thirty to
fifty. If, roughly, 20 per cent of all pupils deviate from the typical
so extremely as to require a considerable amount of individual
instruction for their welfare, it is difficult to see how they may be
well served without a considerable increase in the money cost of
education.
Can the public afford to pay more than it now does? Investigations to
answer this question are under way on a large scale. We need to know
what our country can now pay, in order that we as educators may not
commit the folly on the one hand of urging unwarrantable expenditure,
nor on the other hand of failing to ask the appropriation of all that
can be spared for the development of individual capacity in the nation’s
children.
VII. THE PROBABLE REWARDS OF INDIVIDUALIZING EDUCATION
Even the money returns from scientifically differentiated education
would probably be great, aside from the increase in children’s
happiness, in teachers’ enjoyment, and in adults’ satisfaction. The
tangible values of individualized training might be nearly as great as
its intangible values.
When we reflect closely upon the source of wealth, we see that it comes
from the attack of intellect upon the environment. Apes have no wealth.
Man has wealth only in so far as he acts upon selective thinking in
regard to his environment. A society gains wealth only in so far as it
permits and encourages the use of innate capacities for attack upon the
environment, which lie unequally distributed throughout the juvenile
population. Any theory of wealth that fails to ground itself upon this
fact will but destroy those who seek to practice it.
No nation has ever yet shown what the full reward might be of adapting
education to individual differences. Such a demonstration has been
impossible hitherto, if for no other reason than that there was no known
method of gauging children’s abilities scientifically.
In the older social orders, where education was or is caste-bound, it is
highly probable that on the whole education was and is more fairly
adapted to individual differences than it is with us. Those barbarians
who had much capacity for abstract thinking achieved by trial and
success high-caste status, of which they ultimately became conscious.
The aristocracy of older countries was not established by forces outside
of human nature. The nobles were in the first place those who rose to
power because they were stronger, more enduring, and more capable of
thinking than average men. Caste grew out of human nature itself. The
majority of the nobles’ children were capable by heredity of abstract
thinking, and of acquiring the education, which came finally through
centuries to be provided for them. The majority of those who failed to
achieve high-caste status before it became recognized as such were
doubtless chiefly individuals who produced descendants, on the average
ill adapted to profit from the kind of education established for the
children of the higher castes.
In Great Britain, for example, where social organization was and is
frankly based in theory and practice on caste (upper-caste status being,
however, constantly kept open to adults of unusual achievement), Burt
found that boys of upper-caste family, attending an exclusive high-class
school, surpassed in all respects, in mental tests, sons of middle-class
parents, of equal age, attending common schools. It is necessary, though
outrageous to our prejudices, to face the fact that, in our own country
(where caste is despised in theory and to some extent in practice), the
median capacity of pupils in expensive private schools is well above the
average of the juvenile population at large.
Caste-bound education in older civilizations recognizes innate
individual differences to a considerable extent. Its injustice is that
it does not recognize them completely. Caste takes account of individual
differences due to heredity, but it does not regard those due to
variation. Caste neglects to provide for the overlapping which occurs
among the children of parents of different achievement levels. In a
society founded formally on caste, there is no way provided for the
appropriate education of gifted variants who occur in the lower castes,
and for those of inferior ability born into the higher castes.
Artificial barriers to natural achievement have arisen, because the
consciousness of superior status was accompanied by jealousy of it as
well. Revolt against this injustice to the minority (not recognized,
however, as minority by the rebels) led to the opposite injustice, which
we see practiced in the schools of our own democracy.
In the United States the theory was adopted that all men are created
equal. All children must, therefore, be required to take the same
education. Such a system violates individuality even more painfully and
wastefully than the despised caste system of the older countries does.
As scientific psychology improves the methods of testing for individual
differences in children, it will become possible to educate each one
according to his capacity for learning. It will be possible to conserve
and develop the special aptitudes of every child, regardless of race,
sex, or circumstance. The humiliation and despair of chronic failure at
prescribed tasks unsuited to capacity may be spared every child.
Thus we come again to consider tests of innate educability in _The
Republic_: “We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them
perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be
deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected.”
That will be the way.
REFERENCES
CAMERON, E. H.—_Psychology and the School_; The Century Co., New York,
1921.
CLARK, E.—“The Growth of Cities and Their Indebtedness for Schools”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
ELLIOTT, C. H.—_Variations in Achievements of Pupils_; Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1915.
FRANZEN, R.—_The Accomplishment Ratio_; Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1922.
JUDD, C. H.—“Analysis of Learning Processes and Specific Teaching”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1921.
MAYBERRY, L. W.—“Individualizing Problems for Pupils”; _Elementary
School Journal_, 1917.
RUGG, H. O.—“School Costs and Business Management”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1917.
SPAULDING. F. E.—“A Million a Year”; _Monograph No. 1_, Board of
Education, Minneapolis, 1916–17.
SPAULDING, F. E.—“Financing the Minneapolis Schools”; _Monograph No.
2_; Board of Education, Minneapolis, 1916–17.
TERMAN, L. M.—_The Intelligence of School Children_; Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1919.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“Education for Initiative and Originality”; _Teachers
College Record_, 1916.
WASHBURN, C.—“The Individual System in Winnetka”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1920.
WOOLLEY, H. T.—_Feeble-minded Ex-School Children_; Helen S. Trounstine
Foundation, Cincinnati, 1921.
ZIRBES, L.—“Diagnostic Measurement as a Basis for Procedure”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
INDEX
Ability, definition of, 4.
Absolute pitch, 171.
Agnew, M., 181.
Agraphia, 51.
Aikens, H. A., 48.
Alexia, 51;
“congenital,” 63.
Alcoholic psychosis, 20.
Ambidexterity, 185.
Anderson, C. I., 96, 121, 139.
Aphasia, 51.
Aphemia, 51.
Arithmetic, capacity for, 114;
defined, 115;
special defect in, 119 f.
Arithmetical abilities, organization of, 117 f.;
of children over 180 IQ, 131 f.;
inheritance of, 137 f.
Arithmetical prodigies, 122 ff.
_See also_ Lightning calculators.
Attendance, effects of irregular, 68, 120.
Ayer, F. C., 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 163.
Ayres’ scale, 12, 105.
Baerwald, R., 11, 46.
Baldwin, J. M., 188.
Beeley, A. L., 186, 189, 195.
Berkau, O., 96.
Berkowitz, I. H., 96.
Bernfield, S., 166, 181.
Binet, A., 21, 24, 34, 35, 46, 96, 128, 139, 163.
Binet-Simon tests, 190.
Boggs, L., 171, 181.
Brachiometer, 186.
Brain, localization, 49 f.;
injury to, 53 f.
Broca; P. P., 51.
Broca’s area, 51, 56.
Bronner, A. F., 65, 94, 96, 119.
Brown, W., 47, 118, 140.
Bryan, W. L., 128, 140.
Burt, C., 32, 47, 69, 96, 209.
Buswell, G. T., 96.
Cameron, E. H., 210.
Capacities, relationship among, 11;
decay of, 20.
Capacity, definition of, 4.
Carman, E. K., 113.
Charters, W. W., 113.
Childs, H. G., 163.
Clark, E., 210.
Clemesha, I. C., 63, 96.
Cobb, M. V., 117, 121, 138, 140.
Coefficient of correlation, 11;
interpretation of, 12;
negative, 16;
derived from chance combination, 29 ff.;
derived from biological coherence, 31.
Collar, D. J., 117, 140.
Color blindness, 153.
Common factor, 15.
Compensatory distribution, demand for, 9;
not found, 34.
Comprehension, in reading, 61 f.
Copp, E. F., 175, 181.
Correlation, coefficient of, 11;
between ability to spell and IQ, 13;
in various groups, 18;
of abilities of dements, 21 ff.;
between ability to read and IQ, 57;
between ability in arithmetic and IQ, 114;
between ability in drawing and IQ, 146 f.;
between ability in music and IQ, 168 f.;
between mechanical ability and IQ, 190.
Cortex, 50 f.
Coy, G., 201.
Defects, special. _See_ Special defects.
Dementia paralytica, 20 f.
Democracy, human nature and, 199 f., 210.
Dice, 29 ff.
Disorganizing minds, study of, 19 ff.
Distribution of ability, 9.
Downey, J. E., 195.
Drawing, various kinds of, 141 f.;
ramifications of, 143;
analysis of talent for, 143 f.
Earle, E. L., 105, 113.
Edgren, J. G., 181.
Elderton, E., 147, 163.
Elliott, C. H., 210.
Evanston schools, experimentation in, 145.
Eye-movements, in reading, 61.
Eyes, defects of, 59.
Fernald, G. M., 69, 90, 96.
Fildes, L. G., 95, 96.
Fischlovitz, A., 146, 163.
Fisk, S., 74.
Franzen, R., 210.
Freeman, F. N., 67, 96.
Galton, F., 11, 91.
Gates, A. I., 61, 62, 69, 96, 98.
Gatewood, E. L., 167, 181.
Gaw, E. A., 181.
General factor, 15.
General intelligence, versus special aptitudes, 14;
measurement of, 34 ff.;
relation to reading, 57;
to spelling, 100;
to arithmetic, 114;
to drawing, 146 f.;
to musical talent, 168 f.;
to mechanical ability, 190;
to leadership, 193;
to school progress, 200.
Gillingham, A., 140.
Gordon, H., 188, 195.
Gowin, E. B., 195.
Gray, W. S., 67, 90, 96.
Habits, arithmetical, 120;
methods of detecting, 121.
Haggerty’s scale, 84.
Hansen, C. F., 167, 181.
Hart, B., 22, 23, 24, 47.
Head, H., 51, 56.
Heredity, of mental endowment, 3, 10;
of arithmetical abilities, 137 f.;
of talent in drawing, 158;
of musical talent, 175;
of left-handedness, 185.
Hierarchy, of abilities, 15, 29;
derived by chance, 29 ff.;
of habits in arithmetic, 120.
Hinshelwood, J., 64, 97.
Hollingworth, H. L., 41, 47.
Hollingworth, L. S., 13, 113.
Huey, E. B., 57.
Illustrative cases, of defect in reading, 65 f., 71 f.;
of talent in reading, 91 f.;
of defect in spelling, 109 f.;
of special ability in spelling, 111;
of special defect in arithmetic, 119 ff.;
of lightning calculators, 122 ff.;
of marked ability to calculate, combined with high IQ, 131 ff.;
of special ability in drawing, 154 ff.;
of mirror writing, 189.
Individuality, values of, 196 f.;
compulsory education and, 198;
cost of fostering, 206;
rewards of fostering, 208.
Intellect, organization of, 11 f.;
inheritance of, 27;
uses of, 197 f.
IQ, determination of, 34 ff.;
significance of, 36;
nervous stability and, 70.
_See also_ General intelligence.
Ivanof, E., 147, 163.
Jones, E. E., 145, 163.
Jones, F., 186.
Judd, C. H., 115, 210.
Kallom, A. W., 113.
Keller, H., 69, 90, 96.
Kerschensteiner, G., 163.
Kik, C., 163.
King, I., 97.
Knock, C. J., 181.
Kreuger, F., 47.
Kries, J. Von, 181.
Ladd, G., 51, 56, 96.
Lanterne, S., 140.
Lashley, K. S., 56.
Lazar, E., 140.
Leadership, 192.
Lee, V., 182.
Left-handedness, 183 ff.
Lightning calculators, 115 ff.
Lindley, E. H., 128, 140.
Linguistic functions, loss of, 51;
complexity of, 52;
coherence among, 98.
Lip-movements, 60.
Literacy, 94.
Máday, H. V., 140.
Manuel, H. T., 141, 144, 145, 150, 151, 163.
Martha, precocious reader, 92.
Mathematical ability, 115, 118.
Mayberry, L. W., 211.
McCall, W. A., 33, 47.
Mechanical ability, 190.
Mechanical tests, 85.
Mechanics, of reading, 58 ff.;
of arithmetic, 120.
Mendel, G., 27.
Mendelian inheritance, 27, 176, 185.
Mental age, 35, 39.
Mental endowment, origin of, 3;
when first evident, 42.
Mental functions, speculation concerning, 1;
definition of, 4;
complexity of, 6;
believed to have common factor, 15;
believed to be specialized, 16;
selective enfeeblement of, 21 ff.;
attempted localization of, 49 ff.
Mental measurement, ideals of, 36;
present limitations of, 37.
Mental tests, foretold, 1;
defined, 34;
present limitations of, 37 f.
Merton, E., 96.
Meumann, E., 10, 11, 98, 144, 163.
Meyer, M., 164.
Miller, G. A., 140.
Mirror writing, 188 f.
Mitchell, F. B., 123, 129, 137, 140.
Möbius, P. J., 140.
Monakow, C. Von, 51, 56.
Moore, T. V., 24, 25, 47.
Morgan, W. P., 63, 96.
Music, nature of, 164;
various kinds of, 165;
appreciation of, 180.
Musical sensitivity, 166.
Nervous instability, and reading, 69;
and arithmetic, 122.
Nervous system, 49.
Neurotic children, 69, 122.
Non-reader, four-year study of, 71 f.
Non-readers, summary of studies of, 89 f.
Oakland schools, organization of, 204.
O’Brien, J. A., 97.
Ophthalmologists, reports of, 59.
Pannenberg, H. J., 163, 166, 182.
Pannenberg, W. A., 163, 166, 182.
Performance, as criterion of ability, 5.
Performance tests, Pintner’s, 85.
Peter, R., 163.
Peters, W., 140.
Phonics, taught to non-readers, 66;
carried to excess, 67.
Pictorial completion test, Healy’s, 85.
Pittman, M. S., 113.
Plato, 1.
Platt, W., 182.
Pöhler, Otto, 91.
Poull, L. E., 93, 97.
Problem-solving, 119
Prodigies, 122 f.
Pryor, H. C., 113.
Psychographs, to picture individuality, 38 ff.;
of individuals, 39, 40, 41, 155, 177, 179.
Psychological analysis, of reading, 58;
of spelling, 98;
of calculation, 116;
of talent in drawing, 143;
of musical talent, 165;
of leadership, 192.
Quantitative investigation, results of, 4 f.;
methods of, 11 f.
Ranschburg, P., 58, 97, 140.
Reading, relation to IQ, 57;
very early, 58;
mental age necessary for, 61 f.;
oral, 60;
special defect in, 65 ff.;
special ability in, 91 f.;
effect on spelling, 106.
Révész, G., 47, 166, 171, 182.
Richet, C., 182.
Riley, H. A., 52, 56.
Rogers, A. L., 40, 115, 140.
Rugg, H. O., 47, 211.
Rupp, H., 166, 182.
Scarborough school, experimentation in, 106 f.
Schmitt, C., 65, 90, 97, 119, 140.
Schröck, G., 63, 96.
Schussler, H., 166, 168, 169, 182.
Scripture, E. W., 123, 140.
Seashore, C., 7, 10, 166, 167, 171, 182.
Senile dements, 20 f., 26.
Simon, Th., 21, 24, 46.
Simpson, B. R., 18, 47, 147.
Smith, J. H., 119, 140.
Spaulding, F. E., 211.
Spearman, C., 5, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 47, 54.
Special abilities, measurement of, 37 ff.;
detection of, 37 ff.;
origin of, 43, 45;
frequency of, 44;
relation to school progress, 201 f.
Special defects, and brain anatomy, 52;
detection of, 37 ff.;
origin of, 43, 45;
frequency of, 44;
relation to school progress, 201 f.
Special senses, in reading, 59.
Speech defects, 70.
Spellers, psychological examination of, 100 f.
Spelling, correlation with IQ, 100;
special defect in, 98 ff.;
analysis of, 98 ff.
Stanford-Binet, 57, 58, 68, 85, 95, 109, 150, 191, 193.
Stanton, H. M., 175, 182.
Stenquist, J. L., 190, 195.
Stern, W., 10, 11.
Tachistoscope, 58.
Taussig, F. W., 195.
Terman, L. M., 47, 92, 97, 131, 193, 201, 211.
Terry, P. W., 140.
Thompson, J. R., 47.
Thomson, G., 29, 30, 47, 54.
Thorndike, E. L., 10, 11, 15, 16, 33, 34, 47, 62, 97, 116, 117, 140,
146, 163, 190, 195, 211.
Thorndike-McCall scale, 57, 82, 83.
Tildesley, M. L., 163.
Tilney, F., 52, 56.
Tone deafness, 172.
Tonoscope, 174.
Trabue, M. R., 190.
Trabue’s scale, 57, 77 ff.
Transfer of training, 28, 104.
Truant officers, 199.
Types, folk notions concerning, 2;
human beings not divided into, 6.
Uhl, W. L., 97, 119, 121, 140.
Unmusical children, 169.
Washburn, C., 211.
Weglein, D. E., 17, 48.
Weseen, M. H., 113.
White, A., 93, 97.
Whitford, W. G., 163.
Winford, C. A., 105.
Winnetka schools, organization of, 205, 207.
Witmer, L., 113, 170.
Woodworth, R. S., 51, 56, 96.
Woolley, H. T., 211.
Word blindness, 63 f.
Wundt, W., laboratory of, 4.
X, instruction of, in reading, 71 ff.
Zirbes, L., 211.
-----
Footnote 1:
ρ = 1 − 6ξ_d_^2/_n_(_n_^2 − 1)
Resemblance equals one minus six times the sum of the differences (in
rank) squared, over the number (of cases) times the number (of cases)
squared, minus one.
Footnote 2:
ρ = 1 − 6ξ_d_^2/_n_(_n_^2 − 1) Formula explained, opposite page.
Footnote 3:
Thompson has recently shown that a coefficient of zero does not
necessarily mean absence of relationship between two factors. There
might be a strong influence making for negative correlation, and at
the same time an equally strong influence making for positive
correlation, which might, by just counterbalancing each other, produce
a spurious effect of no connection at all, namely, a coefficient of
0.00.
Footnote 4:
A curious case of negative correlation between cancellation and other
tests has been reported by McCall (see references).
Footnote 5:
“Insanity” and “dementia” seem to be synonymous, as used by Hart and
Spearman. But in American texts “dementia” is limited to mean
intellectual deterioration.
Footnote 6:
Because of the probabilities in die-casting, every single value for
red would have the same median value among the throws of yellow, which
turn up in connection with it, if enough throws are made. This is not
what happens in measuring mental traits. For any single value, high or
low, in one function, the median of repeated measures in the other
function is very different, for most traits, from the median for other
values.
Footnote 7:
For explanation of technical terms see McCall’s _How to Measure in
Education_.
Footnote 8:
This suggestion originated with a colleague of the present writer, who
is working upon allied problems.
Footnote 9:
See Reference to Ladd and Woodworth.
Footnote 10:
It must be remembered that children and adults of almost any birthday
age may be at this general intelligence level.
Footnote 11:
If alternates are counted instead of the four tests which directly
involve reading or spelling, these IQ’s become 88, 85, 87,
respectively.
Footnote 12:
For all practical purposes, IQ’s differing from each other by not more
than 5 points are equal.
Footnote 13:
Fildes’ subjects ranged in birthday age from 9 to 16 years. In
criticism it should be stated that correlation between IQ and ability
to read cannot be clearly interpreted unless an array of birthday ages
is given in conjunction. Fildes does not give such an array.
Footnote 14:
The substance of discussion under this topic is reprinted by courtesy
of the _Teachers College Record_, from the issue of that journal for
March, 1919.
Footnote 15:
Quoted by permission of the Atlantic Monthly Press.
Footnote 16:
Bidder died at 72.
Footnote 17:
The writer is indebted to Miss Mabel R. Goodlander, R’s teacher in the
fourth grade, for this report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
97 Schröck, G.—“Uber kongenitale Schröck, G.—“Über kongenitale
Wortblindkeit”; Klinische Wortblindheit”; Klinische
Monatsblatt Monatsblätter
199 hired tutors. It is true that hired tutors. It is true that
the pubic ceremonies may, the public ceremonies may,
perhaps perhaps
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.
● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to
individual characters (like 2^d).
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
