=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.