INDIVIDUALITY AND EDUCATION
I. THE VALUES OF INDIVIDUALITY
If we try to imagine what the world would be like if there were absolute
uniformity among human beings, we realize anew the precious worth of
individuality. It is marvelous that each one of us is unique. In all the
generations there has never been another just like anyone, and there
will never be exactly his like again. Each is, strictly speaking,
irreplaceable.
By this inexhaustible diversity of mind and body life is faceted, and
gives off sparkle instead of dullness. So far from being irritated by
the idiosyncracies of our fellows, we ought to cherish their variety as
a thing that makes life worth living. Instead of striving to force all
children to learn the same things, at the same time, in the same way,
because that would be cheap and convenient, we ought to foster
individuality in its socially valuable aspects, so that the charm of
human contact may be increased. To the connoisseur of human nature, the
suggestion that all children be reduced to similarity is as dreadful as
the suggestion to the connoisseur of art that all pictures and intaglios
be turned out identical, by a uniform factory process.
Nor is the value of individuality limited to the æsthetics of
personality, and to social intercourse. The economic peculiarities of
the world, as we have it, permit the exercise of abilities in great
variety. Organized society needs and will use capacity of all degrees,
from that of a man who can load sand on a carrier, and be satisfied
thereby, to that of the man who can with satisfaction work out a new
theory of inflammation, or construct a drama to interpret existence
anew.
Failure to know the facts concerning the distribution of mental traits,
the organization of intellect, and the laws of heredity and variation,
leads to much wasted effort on the part of all who deal by profession
with people. The most frequent error is that of demanding that others
adopt one’s own religious beliefs, standard of living, reaction time, or
politics—usually with the idea that they will be greatly benefited
thereby. Another common error of theory is that general happiness would
be increased if some force could be established great enough to hold all
down to the same plane of work, leisure, and reward. In education it has
been assumed that justice would be well served by prescribing the same
curriculum, at the same rate, at the same time, for every child.
If the uniformity of thought and action, to which these theories and
practices tend, could be secured, the result would be deadening. Such
uniformity cannot, however, be achieved, because of the biological
forces of heredity and variation. The formulæ governing the interplay of
these forces are little known, and they therefore lie outside of human
control.
Many thinkers believe that nothing would be lost and much be gained for
human welfare, by cutting off the variants who fall low in intellect and
stability, and by increasing the number of those who fall highest, on
the curve of distribution. However, it is possible to take, and perhaps
to defend, the view that this would be meddlesome rather than helpful.
Civilization becomes complex through the discoveries and inventions of
superior deviates. It was they who invented wheel and lever, clock and
calendar, court and statute book. They discovered the use of
electricity, gravity, and steam. When moral life and industrial life
become very complicated, great numbers of men are unable to meet the
situations devised, and perish mentally, morally, and physically. Law
may become so intricate that only the steadiest can suffer its
restrictions. Mechanical and chemical contrivances may grow so numerous
and complex that typical human nature cannot cope with them. Would it be
better, then, to end invention at its source, by eliminating superior
deviates? Or would mankind thereby lose other gifts, wholly benign for
all, which only the superior deviate can bestow? In the absence of the
highly endowed, would there not be a return to barbarism? And, if so,
would the greatest good of the greatest number be thus promoted? Or
should the welfare of the majority give way as a social ideal to the
welfare of the best—the most capable, the most upright, the most
enduring? Is it possible to evolve a social order in which the greatest
good of all can be well served, since biological inequalities are so
very great? These are questions for social and educational philosophy.
Men of science labor to acquire the knowledge that would give power to
alter, at will, the shape of the curve of distribution for mental
capacities. Such knowledge might work more changes in the world than
have been wrought by knowledge of chemical formulæ or of electricity,
but its right use would call for a wisdom and philosophical foresight
which men at present probably do not have. The conditions and the
theories that confront us in education call on us at present, as a
matter of fact, to provide for the whole enormous range of capacities,
general and special.
II. COMPULSORY EDUCATION
It is useful to recall that for centuries after mankind reached a point
where prolonged formal education was available, attendance upon
instruction was voluntary. Those who wished to learn what could be
taught of the arts and sciences, hired tutors. It is true that the
public ceremonies may, perhaps, be considered to have represented
compulsory education, even in primitive times. However, education in the
sense of several years of devotion to learning what men have previously
done, thought, and devised, was formerly a private matter. The educated,
who could communicate by writing, calculate in large numbers, see the
present to some extent in the light of the past, and engage in even more
complicated intellectual work, formed a small and highly selected group.
They were individuals who loved learning, and their median IQ was
doubtless far above 100.
As the white peoples of the earth, in parts of Europe and America,
accumulated wealth, and more and more of those who cared to do so could
buy education, political power began to be decentralized. Generous men
of high intelligence conceived the idea that government should be
representative. Political democracy with manhood suffrage was
established in the United States. It was then seen that political
democracy cannot be sustained on the basis of private education, and
public money was appropriated to establish public schools.
Merely to establish free schools did not, however, solve the problem of
education for a democracy. The leaders of thought and action found that
not only must opportunity be provided, but many must be forced to take
advantage of it. Compulsory education laws were therefore passed in many
of our states, and they stand upon their statute books to-day. Truant
officers became a part of the regular school staff, their duty being to
apprehend all children between statutory ages, and bring them forcibly
to school. The City of New York, for instance, now supports 308 truant
officers, who are constantly kept busy by future citizens who wish to
avoid education.
Why do they wish to avoid education? The reasons are various. Some of
them avoid school because they have not enough clothing to wear; some
because their parents need their earnings; some because they are ill;
some because they are temperamentally unsuited to school discipline. The
most important single cause of truancy is, however, that the curriculum
does not provide for individual differences.
The curriculum upon which all children are now required by law to
attend, is that which was formulated when only a few selected children
were educated. Our schools are reading schools, and they teach abstract
subject matter to a very great extent, much of which has no tangible
relation to the life of many children. Children of IQ over 120 take
pleasure in the abstract subject matter of grammar, mathematics,
geography, and history. Children of IQ under 80 are made miserable
thereby.
Not only is the curriculum not adapted to individual differences in
general intelligence, but it is far less adapted to individual
differences in special defects and aptitudes. The child who can never
learn to sing is compelled nevertheless to pursue singing, even after
school hours. The child who cannot learn reading by the method generally
used is still treated by that method and no other. The schools were
established with an undifferentiated curriculum, which they have tried
to force upon intellects of an enormous range of diversity. Their
purpose, so benign, has resulted in extraordinary cruelties and wastes.
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE FOR SCHOOL PROGRESS
If we examine mentally the large numbers of retardates in any public
school where attendance is compulsory, we find that by far the majority
of them are inferior in general intelligence. A child of superior
general intelligence (IQ) is seldom found among retardates. Of children
of 120 IQ and over, Terman reports that they are almost invariably at
least up to grade. Whatever the vicissitudes of fate—illness, absence,
special disability—a child of superior general capacity manages to hold
his own, at least.
It is not true, however, that the superior child is allowed, under the
undifferentiated curriculum, to make full use of his power. He is
compelled to slow down to the typical progress of his group, and to use
only a portion of his capacity for learning. It is rare to find a
superior child who is doing “a full day’s work” in school, because the
tasks assigned do not call for maximum effort. Superior children could
easily do much more than is allowed.
General intelligence is, then, the single most important factor for
school progress. The same may be said of progress in vocational careers.
The life success of a human being may be said to depend upon general
intelligence, character, health, and opportunity (including the factor
of sex). If any of these factors is reduced to zero, so that the
individual is totally lacking in intelligence, character, health, or
opportunity there can be no achievement. The order of importance of the
various factors is probably that in which they have been mentioned, with
general intelligence certainly at the top of the list. Intelligence may
create character, opportunity, and even health, but none of these can
create intelligence.
IV. SPECIAL ABILITIES AND DISABILITIES AS DETERMINANTS OF SCHOOL
PROGRESS
As before stated in these pages, no census has ever been taken of
special aptitudes and defects, in the functions which we have been
discussing, and which are important for progress through the elementary
school. No one can tell whether any have been advanced on the basis of a
special gift. No one can say how many children are retarded, because of
a specialized disability, though we know from reports rendered, that
some pupils become retarded in school status through special failure in
one or two respects.
The children described under the topics of special retardation in
reading and in arithmetic, in this volume, are illustrative of the way
in which specialized defect contributes to retardation in school status.
Without passable mastery of these “tool” subjects a child cannot proceed
through the elementary school. His progress is halted, much as it would
be if he were deficient in general intelligence.
It is quite possible, on the other hand, that children may be
occasionally overrated as to intellect by teachers, who are deceived by
conspicuous talent in a special function. Coy, who studied for two years
a class of highly intelligent children in Columbus, has given an account
of a boy who was thus overrated. When the children were being selected
for the special class described, this boy was sent by his teacher to
join the group. She considered that he must be “very bright,” “since he
could draw cartoons, play the ukelele, and sing.” He was said by the art
teacher to have more ability than any other child in the building. He
was retained in the special class by the investigator, but he was not
able to do good work there. His IQ on three annual testings stood as
114, 119, and 120. (The other children in the group possessed general
intelligence clustering about an IQ of approximately 135.) This boy
surpassed the others in music, acting, and drawing, but “his ability to
reason was far below the class level,” and he could not compete
successfully in general intellectual work. His teachers had been misled
by his special gifts to recommend him as a child of surpassing
intellect.
V. EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO INDIVIDUALIZE EDUCATION
Official administrative recognition of individual differences among
public school pupils began with the extremely stupid, whom we call
feeble-minded. This was natural, because the feeble-minded are incapable
of even approximately normal progress, and this, added to their tendency
to become disciplinary problems, renders them an intolerable burden to
teachers in the regular grades.
As long ago as 1872 we find that attention was called to the
“pedagogical misfits,” in proceedings at professional teachers’ meetings
in the United States. By 1890 the city of Cleveland had established two
special classes for children presenting particular difficulties of
discipline. Special classes for extremely dull children (the
feeble-minded) have passed the stage of experiment. They are now an
accepted part of the school system of many cities in this country, and a
few state departments of education have undertaken to establish such
special classes for districts not so favorably situated as cities are.
The relative money cost of thus educating the most stupid children
produced in our population is great, and the returns upon the investment
are uncertain. We need careful studies of the cost of educating the
dull, as compared with the cost of educating the superior, in the light
of the returns from education, both to the public and to the individuals
taught. The complexity of such study calls for much patience and
ingenuity.
Special classes for children of very superior general intelligence, who
are as far above the average as the feeble-minded are below, are at
present much discussed by American educators. Such classes have actually
been established in a few school systems. These are still considered to
be experimental, but it surely will not be very long before official
administrative recognition will be widely given to the needs of pupils
whose natural rate of progress is over twice as rapid as that of the
average child. Abroad, Germany has already undertaken education for
gifted children as a special project of the public schools, in
recognition, no doubt, of the extent to which national rehabilitation
will be dependent on the training of the able. Contrary to pre-war
policy, German educators are now seeking, by the method of mental tests,
for superior mental endowment regardless of social-economic status, and
even to some extent regardless of sex.
In general it is true that the provisions in the United States are for
deviates so extreme in all capacities that their maladjustment to
typical procedure creates a troublesome school problem on the one hand,
and on the other a burden to the conscience of those who administer
education. Classroom teachers demand that special attention be given to
those who are chronically unpromotable and out of order, while
educational psychologists insist upon the waste of ability that ensues
from allowing gifted children to idle through the curriculum. For
deviates of less degree there is not much provision. A few cities, of
which Oakland, California, may be mentioned as an outstanding example,
have adopted a three-rates-of-progress system, in which the children of
typical ability (the great majority) proceed at a median rate, the
lowest quartile (exclusive of the very lowest percentile) proceeding
more slowly, and the highest quartile more rapidly. The system provides
a flexibility far in advance of the ordinary one-rate-of-progress
system, allowing for individual differences in general intelligence.
Little attention has been given as yet to the matter of individualizing
public education for children who show special talents or defects. Some
years ago the superintendent of schools in Munich requested the teachers
of certain grades throughout the city, to ask each child to draw two
sketches: one from a model, and the other a free sketch. These were
sorted for the purpose of finding exceptional talent in drawing. A
certain per cent of the children showing this special gift were sought
out and encouraged. Particular attention was given to the development of
their talents.
Similar instances of official attempts to gauge and foster special
talents are extremely rare. The experiment at Winnetka, Illinois, is of
this order. In Winnetka there is a flexible promotion system, wherein
pupils “pass” in a subject whenever they have completed the work
therein. A pupil may be in different grades in different subjects. His
whole school career need not be jeopardized by a single weakness, and if
he has a special strength he is permitted to develop it as original
nature would dictate.
At first thought it might seem that a public school system would be
thrown into confusion by such a scheme. In Winnetka there are thirty to
thirty-five pupils in a classroom. How can programs be arranged to suit
the needs of deviating children, without much extra equipment?
Here it is necessary to recall that the majority of these children are
_typical_. The middle 50 per cent of all children born deviate but
slightly from the type of the race, in all their mental functions. They
do not call for special adjustments. On either side of these, deviating
more widely toward less and greater, run the remainder of the children,
in very rapidly decreasing frequencies. Those who need a very wide
latitude in school organization constitute possibly 20 per cent of all,
the highest 10 per cent, and the lowest 10 per cent, in general or
special capacity. The problem does not seem so vast, when we recall the
shape of the curve of distribution; and the comparative infrequency of
extremely unusual children.
VI. THE COST OF FOSTERING INDIVIDUALITY
The cost of individualizing education acts as a deterrent, even when the
desirability is fully recognized. Compulsory education for all the
children of all the people is expensive. A nation must be wealthy in
order to carry it through. To maintain every child born into the social
order for fourteen to sixteen years without earnings, and to pay from
public taxation for his education for eight to ten or more of those
years, is an enterprise upon which few societies of any time have
ventured. Nevertheless, if democracy is to survive, and especially if it
is to improve, as a form of government, universal education on a large
scale is basic. Self-government, in the highly complicated environment
which has been evolved, depends on literacy and other knowledge,
requiring long instruction, even for youth of average ability.
What then of the great numbers of those who deviate in various degrees
below the average in capacity for learning? The social order needs and
will utilize their services. The economics of their presence in the
republic is not a much more difficult problem than under other forms of
government. It is the politics of their presence that causes concern
under a democracy; for they are enfranchised, yet without learning they
are political dependents. They stand at the mercy of any catch word
tossed at them, with results which have raised on every hand an earnest
searching of democracy.
For example, this question has been raised: Is it possible for education
to prepare the lower half of the distribution curve for self-government?
Considering recent discoveries as to the mental capacity which
characterizes the lower half of the population when adult, is it
possible that education will ever be able to nullify the charlatan
influence of demagogues, whose appeal is to prejudice and cupidity?
These questions remain unanswered. In the meantime the great experiment
of compulsory education is under way. The expense of it is kept down by
teaching the children in large groups of thirty to fifty or over, the
same lessons, in the same way, at the same time.
What would be the actual money cost of providing for individual
differences in capacities, general and special? Few data to answer this
question have been furnished. In Winnetka the cost of education is
reported as not increased. This condition is doubtless exceptional. As
previously stated, the money cost of individualizing education for the
feeble-minded has been considerable. We have the figures from
Cincinnati, and we derive from them that the cost of educating a
feeble-minded child (one falling into the lowest one or two per cent in
the distribution of general intelligence) in a special class, is over
twice as great per annum as is the cost of educating an average child in
the regular grades. For a feeble-minded child in a special class in
Cincinnati, during the year 1917 to 1918, the money cost per annum was
$83, while for a typical child in the regular grades it was $35.
The increased cost results from the fact that when education is
individualized, the number of pupils occupying a room and taught by a
teacher is about fifteen, instead of the regular number of thirty to
fifty. If, roughly, 20 per cent of all pupils deviate from the typical
so extremely as to require a considerable amount of individual
instruction for their welfare, it is difficult to see how they may be
well served without a considerable increase in the money cost of
education.
Can the public afford to pay more than it now does? Investigations to
answer this question are under way on a large scale. We need to know
what our country can now pay, in order that we as educators may not
commit the folly on the one hand of urging unwarrantable expenditure,
nor on the other hand of failing to ask the appropriation of all that
can be spared for the development of individual capacity in the nation’s
children.
VII. THE PROBABLE REWARDS OF INDIVIDUALIZING EDUCATION
Even the money returns from scientifically differentiated education
would probably be great, aside from the increase in children’s
happiness, in teachers’ enjoyment, and in adults’ satisfaction. The
tangible values of individualized training might be nearly as great as
its intangible values.
When we reflect closely upon the source of wealth, we see that it comes
from the attack of intellect upon the environment. Apes have no wealth.
Man has wealth only in so far as he acts upon selective thinking in
regard to his environment. A society gains wealth only in so far as it
permits and encourages the use of innate capacities for attack upon the
environment, which lie unequally distributed throughout the juvenile
population. Any theory of wealth that fails to ground itself upon this
fact will but destroy those who seek to practice it.
No nation has ever yet shown what the full reward might be of adapting
education to individual differences. Such a demonstration has been
impossible hitherto, if for no other reason than that there was no known
method of gauging children’s abilities scientifically.
In the older social orders, where education was or is caste-bound, it is
highly probable that on the whole education was and is more fairly
adapted to individual differences than it is with us. Those barbarians
who had much capacity for abstract thinking achieved by trial and
success high-caste status, of which they ultimately became conscious.
The aristocracy of older countries was not established by forces outside
of human nature. The nobles were in the first place those who rose to
power because they were stronger, more enduring, and more capable of
thinking than average men. Caste grew out of human nature itself. The
majority of the nobles’ children were capable by heredity of abstract
thinking, and of acquiring the education, which came finally through
centuries to be provided for them. The majority of those who failed to
achieve high-caste status before it became recognized as such were
doubtless chiefly individuals who produced descendants, on the average
ill adapted to profit from the kind of education established for the
children of the higher castes.
In Great Britain, for example, where social organization was and is
frankly based in theory and practice on caste (upper-caste status being,
however, constantly kept open to adults of unusual achievement), Burt
found that boys of upper-caste family, attending an exclusive high-class
school, surpassed in all respects, in mental tests, sons of middle-class
parents, of equal age, attending common schools. It is necessary, though
outrageous to our prejudices, to face the fact that, in our own country
(where caste is despised in theory and to some extent in practice), the
median capacity of pupils in expensive private schools is well above the
average of the juvenile population at large.
Caste-bound education in older civilizations recognizes innate
individual differences to a considerable extent. Its injustice is that
it does not recognize them completely. Caste takes account of individual
differences due to heredity, but it does not regard those due to
variation. Caste neglects to provide for the overlapping which occurs
among the children of parents of different achievement levels. In a
society founded formally on caste, there is no way provided for the
appropriate education of gifted variants who occur in the lower castes,
and for those of inferior ability born into the higher castes.
Artificial barriers to natural achievement have arisen, because the
consciousness of superior status was accompanied by jealousy of it as
well. Revolt against this injustice to the minority (not recognized,
however, as minority by the rebels) led to the opposite injustice, which
we see practiced in the schools of our own democracy.
In the United States the theory was adopted that all men are created
equal. All children must, therefore, be required to take the same
education. Such a system violates individuality even more painfully and
wastefully than the despised caste system of the older countries does.
As scientific psychology improves the methods of testing for individual
differences in children, it will become possible to educate each one
according to his capacity for learning. It will be possible to conserve
and develop the special aptitudes of every child, regardless of race,
sex, or circumstance. The humiliation and despair of chronic failure at
prescribed tasks unsuited to capacity may be spared every child.
Thus we come again to consider tests of innate educability in _The
Republic_: “We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them
perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be
deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected.”
That will be the way.
REFERENCES
CAMERON, E. H.—_Psychology and the School_; The Century Co., New York,
1921.
CLARK, E.—“The Growth of Cities and Their Indebtedness for Schools”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
ELLIOTT, C. H.—_Variations in Achievements of Pupils_; Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1915.
FRANZEN, R.—_The Accomplishment Ratio_; Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1922.
JUDD, C. H.—“Analysis of Learning Processes and Specific Teaching”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1921.
MAYBERRY, L. W.—“Individualizing Problems for Pupils”; _Elementary
School Journal_, 1917.
RUGG, H. O.—“School Costs and Business Management”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1917.
SPAULDING. F. E.—“A Million a Year”; _Monograph No. 1_, Board of
Education, Minneapolis, 1916–17.
SPAULDING, F. E.—“Financing the Minneapolis Schools”; _Monograph No.
2_; Board of Education, Minneapolis, 1916–17.
TERMAN, L. M.—_The Intelligence of School Children_; Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1919.
THORNDIKE, E. L.—“Education for Initiative and Originality”; _Teachers
College Record_, 1916.
WASHBURN, C.—“The Individual System in Winnetka”; _Elementary School
Journal_, 1920.
WOOLLEY, H. T.—_Feeble-minded Ex-School Children_; Helen S. Trounstine
Foundation, Cincinnati, 1921.
ZIRBES, L.—“Diagnostic Measurement as a Basis for Procedure”;
_Elementary School Journal_, 1918.
INDEX
Ability, definition of, 4.
Absolute pitch, 171.
Agnew, M., 181.
Agraphia, 51.
Aikens, H. A., 48.
Alexia, 51;
“congenital,” 63.
Alcoholic psychosis, 20.
Ambidexterity, 185.
Anderson, C. I., 96, 121, 139.
Aphasia, 51.
Aphemia, 51.
Arithmetic, capacity for, 114;
defined, 115;
special defect in, 119 f.
Arithmetical abilities, organization of, 117 f.;
of children over 180 IQ, 131 f.;
inheritance of, 137 f.
Arithmetical prodigies, 122 ff.
_See also_ Lightning calculators.
Attendance, effects of irregular, 68, 120.
Ayer, F. C., 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 163.
Ayres’ scale, 12, 105.
Baerwald, R., 11, 46.
Baldwin, J. M., 188.
Beeley, A. L., 186, 189, 195.
Berkau, O., 96.
Berkowitz, I. H., 96.
Bernfield, S., 166, 181.
Binet, A., 21, 24, 34, 35, 46, 96, 128, 139, 163.
Binet-Simon tests, 190.
Boggs, L., 171, 181.
Brachiometer, 186.
Brain, localization, 49 f.;
injury to, 53 f.
Broca; P. P., 51.
Broca’s area, 51, 56.
Bronner, A. F., 65, 94, 96, 119.
Brown, W., 47, 118, 140.
Bryan, W. L., 128, 140.
Burt, C., 32, 47, 69, 96, 209.
Buswell, G. T., 96.
Cameron, E. H., 210.
Capacities, relationship among, 11;
decay of, 20.
Capacity, definition of, 4.
Carman, E. K., 113.
Charters, W. W., 113.
Childs, H. G., 163.
Clark, E., 210.
Clemesha, I. C., 63, 96.
Cobb, M. V., 117, 121, 138, 140.
Coefficient of correlation, 11;
interpretation of, 12;
negative, 16;
derived from chance combination, 29 ff.;
derived from biological coherence, 31.
Collar, D. J., 117, 140.
Color blindness, 153.
Common factor, 15.
Compensatory distribution, demand for, 9;
not found, 34.
Comprehension, in reading, 61 f.
Copp, E. F., 175, 181.
Correlation, coefficient of, 11;
between ability to spell and IQ, 13;
in various groups, 18;
of abilities of dements, 21 ff.;
between ability to read and IQ, 57;
between ability in arithmetic and IQ, 114;
between ability in drawing and IQ, 146 f.;
between ability in music and IQ, 168 f.;
between mechanical ability and IQ, 190.
Cortex, 50 f.
Coy, G., 201.
Defects, special. _See_ Special defects.
Dementia paralytica, 20 f.
Democracy, human nature and, 199 f., 210.
Dice, 29 ff.
Disorganizing minds, study of, 19 ff.
Distribution of ability, 9.
Downey, J. E., 195.
Drawing, various kinds of, 141 f.;
ramifications of, 143;
analysis of talent for, 143 f.
Earle, E. L., 105, 113.
Edgren, J. G., 181.
Elderton, E., 147, 163.
Elliott, C. H., 210.
Evanston schools, experimentation in, 145.
Eye-movements, in reading, 61.
Eyes, defects of, 59.
Fernald, G. M., 69, 90, 96.
Fildes, L. G., 95, 96.
Fischlovitz, A., 146, 163.
Fisk, S., 74.
Franzen, R., 210.
Freeman, F. N., 67, 96.
Galton, F., 11, 91.
Gates, A. I., 61, 62, 69, 96, 98.
Gatewood, E. L., 167, 181.
Gaw, E. A., 181.
General factor, 15.
General intelligence, versus special aptitudes, 14;
measurement of, 34 ff.;
relation to reading, 57;
to spelling, 100;
to arithmetic, 114;
to drawing, 146 f.;
to musical talent, 168 f.;
to mechanical ability, 190;
to leadership, 193;
to school progress, 200.
Gillingham, A., 140.
Gordon, H., 188, 195.
Gowin, E. B., 195.
Gray, W. S., 67, 90, 96.
Habits, arithmetical, 120;
methods of detecting, 121.
Haggerty’s scale, 84.
Hansen, C. F., 167, 181.
Hart, B., 22, 23, 24, 47.
Head, H., 51, 56.
Heredity, of mental endowment, 3, 10;
of arithmetical abilities, 137 f.;
of talent in drawing, 158;
of musical talent, 175;
of left-handedness, 185.
Hierarchy, of abilities, 15, 29;
derived by chance, 29 ff.;
of habits in arithmetic, 120.
Hinshelwood, J., 64, 97.
Hollingworth, H. L., 41, 47.
Hollingworth, L. S., 13, 113.
Huey, E. B., 57.
Illustrative cases, of defect in reading, 65 f., 71 f.;
of talent in reading, 91 f.;
of defect in spelling, 109 f.;
of special ability in spelling, 111;
of special defect in arithmetic, 119 ff.;
of lightning calculators, 122 ff.;
of marked ability to calculate, combined with high IQ, 131 ff.;
of special ability in drawing, 154 ff.;
of mirror writing, 189.
Individuality, values of, 196 f.;
compulsory education and, 198;
cost of fostering, 206;
rewards of fostering, 208.
Intellect, organization of, 11 f.;
inheritance of, 27;
uses of, 197 f.
IQ, determination of, 34 ff.;
significance of, 36;
nervous stability and, 70.
_See also_ General intelligence.
Ivanof, E., 147, 163.
Jones, E. E., 145, 163.
Jones, F., 186.
Judd, C. H., 115, 210.
Kallom, A. W., 113.
Keller, H., 69, 90, 96.
Kerschensteiner, G., 163.
Kik, C., 163.
King, I., 97.
Knock, C. J., 181.
Kreuger, F., 47.
Kries, J. Von, 181.
Ladd, G., 51, 56, 96.
Lanterne, S., 140.
Lashley, K. S., 56.
Lazar, E., 140.
Leadership, 192.
Lee, V., 182.
Left-handedness, 183 ff.
Lightning calculators, 115 ff.
Lindley, E. H., 128, 140.
Linguistic functions, loss of, 51;
complexity of, 52;
coherence among, 98.
Lip-movements, 60.
Literacy, 94.
Máday, H. V., 140.
Manuel, H. T., 141, 144, 145, 150, 151, 163.
Martha, precocious reader, 92.
Mathematical ability, 115, 118.
Mayberry, L. W., 211.
McCall, W. A., 33, 47.
Mechanical ability, 190.
Mechanical tests, 85.
Mechanics, of reading, 58 ff.;
of arithmetic, 120.
Mendel, G., 27.
Mendelian inheritance, 27, 176, 185.
Mental age, 35, 39.
Mental endowment, origin of, 3;
when first evident, 42.
Mental functions, speculation concerning, 1;
definition of, 4;
complexity of, 6;
believed to have common factor, 15;
believed to be specialized, 16;
selective enfeeblement of, 21 ff.;
attempted localization of, 49 ff.
Mental measurement, ideals of, 36;
present limitations of, 37.
Mental tests, foretold, 1;
defined, 34;
present limitations of, 37 f.
Merton, E., 96.
Meumann, E., 10, 11, 98, 144, 163.
Meyer, M., 164.
Miller, G. A., 140.
Mirror writing, 188 f.
Mitchell, F. B., 123, 129, 137, 140.
Möbius, P. J., 140.
Monakow, C. Von, 51, 56.
Moore, T. V., 24, 25, 47.
Morgan, W. P., 63, 96.
Music, nature of, 164;
various kinds of, 165;
appreciation of, 180.
Musical sensitivity, 166.
Nervous instability, and reading, 69;
and arithmetic, 122.
Nervous system, 49.
Neurotic children, 69, 122.
Non-reader, four-year study of, 71 f.
Non-readers, summary of studies of, 89 f.
Oakland schools, organization of, 204.
O’Brien, J. A., 97.
Ophthalmologists, reports of, 59.
Pannenberg, H. J., 163, 166, 182.
Pannenberg, W. A., 163, 166, 182.
Performance, as criterion of ability, 5.
Performance tests, Pintner’s, 85.
Peter, R., 163.
Peters, W., 140.
Phonics, taught to non-readers, 66;
carried to excess, 67.
Pictorial completion test, Healy’s, 85.
Pittman, M. S., 113.
Plato, 1.
Platt, W., 182.
Pöhler, Otto, 91.
Poull, L. E., 93, 97.
Problem-solving, 119
Prodigies, 122 f.
Pryor, H. C., 113.
Psychographs, to picture individuality, 38 ff.;
of individuals, 39, 40, 41, 155, 177, 179.
Psychological analysis, of reading, 58;
of spelling, 98;
of calculation, 116;
of talent in drawing, 143;
of musical talent, 165;
of leadership, 192.
Quantitative investigation, results of, 4 f.;
methods of, 11 f.
Ranschburg, P., 58, 97, 140.
Reading, relation to IQ, 57;
very early, 58;
mental age necessary for, 61 f.;
oral, 60;
special defect in, 65 ff.;
special ability in, 91 f.;
effect on spelling, 106.
Révész, G., 47, 166, 171, 182.
Richet, C., 182.
Riley, H. A., 52, 56.
Rogers, A. L., 40, 115, 140.
Rugg, H. O., 47, 211.
Rupp, H., 166, 182.
Scarborough school, experimentation in, 106 f.
Schmitt, C., 65, 90, 97, 119, 140.
Schröck, G., 63, 96.
Schussler, H., 166, 168, 169, 182.
Scripture, E. W., 123, 140.
Seashore, C., 7, 10, 166, 167, 171, 182.
Senile dements, 20 f., 26.
Simon, Th., 21, 24, 46.
Simpson, B. R., 18, 47, 147.
Smith, J. H., 119, 140.
Spaulding, F. E., 211.
Spearman, C., 5, 11, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 47, 54.
Special abilities, measurement of, 37 ff.;
detection of, 37 ff.;
origin of, 43, 45;
frequency of, 44;
relation to school progress, 201 f.
Special defects, and brain anatomy, 52;
detection of, 37 ff.;
origin of, 43, 45;
frequency of, 44;
relation to school progress, 201 f.
Special senses, in reading, 59.
Speech defects, 70.
Spellers, psychological examination of, 100 f.
Spelling, correlation with IQ, 100;
special defect in, 98 ff.;
analysis of, 98 ff.
Stanford-Binet, 57, 58, 68, 85, 95, 109, 150, 191, 193.
Stanton, H. M., 175, 182.
Stenquist, J. L., 190, 195.
Stern, W., 10, 11.
Tachistoscope, 58.
Taussig, F. W., 195.
Terman, L. M., 47, 92, 97, 131, 193, 201, 211.
Terry, P. W., 140.
Thompson, J. R., 47.
Thomson, G., 29, 30, 47, 54.
Thorndike, E. L., 10, 11, 15, 16, 33, 34, 47, 62, 97, 116, 117, 140,
146, 163, 190, 195, 211.
Thorndike-McCall scale, 57, 82, 83.
Tildesley, M. L., 163.
Tilney, F., 52, 56.
Tone deafness, 172.
Tonoscope, 174.
Trabue, M. R., 190.
Trabue’s scale, 57, 77 ff.
Transfer of training, 28, 104.
Truant officers, 199.
Types, folk notions concerning, 2;
human beings not divided into, 6.
Uhl, W. L., 97, 119, 121, 140.
Unmusical children, 169.
Washburn, C., 211.
Weglein, D. E., 17, 48.
Weseen, M. H., 113.
White, A., 93, 97.
Whitford, W. G., 163.
Winford, C. A., 105.
Winnetka schools, organization of, 205, 207.
Witmer, L., 113, 170.
Woodworth, R. S., 51, 56, 96.
Woolley, H. T., 211.
Word blindness, 63 f.
Wundt, W., laboratory of, 4.
X, instruction of, in reading, 71 ff.
Zirbes, L., 211.
-----
Footnote 1:
ρ = 1 − 6ξ_d_^2/_n_(_n_^2 − 1)
Resemblance equals one minus six times the sum of the differences (in
rank) squared, over the number (of cases) times the number (of cases)
squared, minus one.
Footnote 2:
ρ = 1 − 6ξ_d_^2/_n_(_n_^2 − 1) Formula explained, opposite page.
Footnote 3:
Thompson has recently shown that a coefficient of zero does not
necessarily mean absence of relationship between two factors. There
might be a strong influence making for negative correlation, and at
the same time an equally strong influence making for positive
correlation, which might, by just counterbalancing each other, produce
a spurious effect of no connection at all, namely, a coefficient of
0.00.
Footnote 4:
A curious case of negative correlation between cancellation and other
tests has been reported by McCall (see references).
Footnote 5:
“Insanity” and “dementia” seem to be synonymous, as used by Hart and
Spearman. But in American texts “dementia” is limited to mean
intellectual deterioration.
Footnote 6:
Because of the probabilities in die-casting, every single value for
red would have the same median value among the throws of yellow, which
turn up in connection with it, if enough throws are made. This is not
what happens in measuring mental traits. For any single value, high or
low, in one function, the median of repeated measures in the other
function is very different, for most traits, from the median for other
values.
Footnote 7:
For explanation of technical terms see McCall’s _How to Measure in
Education_.
Footnote 8:
This suggestion originated with a colleague of the present writer, who
is working upon allied problems.
Footnote 9:
See Reference to Ladd and Woodworth.
Footnote 10:
It must be remembered that children and adults of almost any birthday
age may be at this general intelligence level.
Footnote 11:
If alternates are counted instead of the four tests which directly
involve reading or spelling, these IQ’s become 88, 85, 87,
respectively.
Footnote 12:
For all practical purposes, IQ’s differing from each other by not more
than 5 points are equal.
Footnote 13:
Fildes’ subjects ranged in birthday age from 9 to 16 years. In
criticism it should be stated that correlation between IQ and ability
to read cannot be clearly interpreted unless an array of birthday ages
is given in conjunction. Fildes does not give such an array.
Footnote 14:
The substance of discussion under this topic is reprinted by courtesy
of the _Teachers College Record_, from the issue of that journal for
March, 1919.
Footnote 15:
Quoted by permission of the Atlantic Monthly Press.
Footnote 16:
Bidder died at 72.
Footnote 17:
The writer is indebted to Miss Mabel R. Goodlander, R’s teacher in the
fourth grade, for this report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
97 Schröck, G.—“Uber kongenitale Schröck, G.—“Über kongenitale
Wortblindkeit”; Klinische Wortblindheit”; Klinische
Monatsblatt Monatsblätter
199 hired tutors. It is true that hired tutors. It is true that
the pubic ceremonies may, the public ceremonies may,
perhaps perhaps
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.
● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to
individual characters (like 2^d).