CHAPTER XV
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
The general facts concerning individual variations in abilities--that the variations are large, that they are continuous, and that for children of the same age they usually cluster around one typical or modal ability, becoming less and less frequent as we pass to very high or very low degrees of the ability--are all well illustrated by arithmetical abilities.
NATURE AND AMOUNT
The surfaces of frequency shown in Figs. 61, 62, and 63 are samples. In these diagrams each space along the baseline represents a certain score or degree of ability, and the height of the surface above it represents the number of individuals obtaining that score. Thus in Fig. 61, 63 out of 1000 soldiers had no correct answer, 36 out of 1000 had one correct answer, 49 had two, 55 had three, 67 had four, and so on, in a test with problems (stated in words).
Figure 61 shows that these adults varied from no problems solved correctly to eighteen, around eight as a central tendency. Figure 62 shows that children of the same year-age (they were also from the same neighborhood and in the same school) varied from under 40 to over 200 figures correct. Figure 63 shows that even among children who have all reached the same school grade and so had rather similar educational opportunities in arithmetic, the variation is still very great. It requires a range from 15 to over 30 examples right to include even nine tenths of them.
It should, however, be noted that if each individual had been scored by the average of his work on eight or ten different days instead of by his work in just one test, the variability would have been somewhat less than appears in Figs. 61, 62, and 63.
It is also the case that if each individual had been scored, not in problem-solving alone or division alone, but in an elaborate examination on the whole field of arithmetic, the variability would have been somewhat less than appears in Figs. 61, 62, and 63. On the other hand, if the officers and the soldiers rejected for feeblemindedness had been included in Fig. 61, if the 11-year-olds in special classes for the very dull had been included in Fig. 62, and if all children who had been to school six years had been included in Fig. 63, no matter what grade they had reached, the effect would have been to _increase_ the variability.
In spite of the effort by school officers to collect in any one school grade those somewhat equal in ability or in achievement or in a mixture of the two, the population of the same grades in the same school system shows a very wide range in any arithmetical ability. This is partly because promotion is on a more general basis than arithmetical ability so that some very able arithmeticians are deliberately held back on account of other deficiencies, and some very incompetent arithmeticians are advanced on account of other excellencies. It is partly because of general inaccuracy in classifying and promoting pupils.
In a composite score made up of the sum of the scores in Woody tests,--Add. A, Subt. A, Mult. A, and Div. A, and two tests in problem-solving (ten and six graded problems, with maximum attainable credits of 30 and 18), Kruse ['18] found facts from which I compute those of Table 13, and Figs. 64 to 66, for pupils all having the training of the same city system, one which sought to grade its pupils very carefully.
The overlapping of grade upon grade should be noted. Of the pupils in grade 6 about 18 percent do better than the average pupil in grade 7, and about 7 percent do better than the average pupil in grade 8. Of the pupils in grade 8 about 33 percent do worse than the average pupil in grade 7 and about 12 percent do worse than the average pupil in grade 6.
TABLE 13
RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF SCORES IN AN EXTENSIVE TEAM OF ARITHMETICAL TESTS.[23] IN PERCENTS
============================================== SCORE | GRADE 6 | GRADE 7 | GRADE 8 ------------+-----------+-----------+--------- 70 to 79 | 1.3 | .9 | .4 80 " 89 | 5.5 | 2.3 | .4 90 " 99 | 10.6 | 4.3 | 2.9 100 " 109 | 19.4 | 5.2 | 4.4 110 " 119 | 19.8 | 18.5 | 5.8 120 " 129 | 23.5 | 16.2 | 16.8 130 " 139 | 12.6 | 17.5 | 16.8 140 " 149 | 4.6 | 13.9 | 22.9 150 " 159 | 1.7 | 13.6 | 17.1 160 " 169 | 1.2 | 4.8 | 9.4 170 " 179 | | 2.5 | 3.3 ==============================================
[23] Compiled from data on p. 89 of Kruse ['18].
DIFFERENCES WITHIN ONE CLASS
The variation within a single class for which a single teacher has to provide is great. Even when teaching is departmental and promotion is by subjects, and when also the school is a large one and classification within a grade is by ability--there may be a wide range for any given special component ability. Under ordinary circumstances the range is so great as to be one of the chief limiting conditions for the teaching of arithmetic. Many methods appropriate to the top quarter of the class will be almost useless for the bottom quarter, and _vice versa_.
Figures 67 and 68 show the scores of ten classes taken at random from ninety 6 B classes in one city by Courtis ['13, p. 64] in amount of computation done in 12 minutes. Observe the very wide variation present in the case of every class. The variation within a class would be somewhat reduced if each pupil were measured by his average in eight or ten such tests given on different days. If a rather generous allowance is made for this we still have a variation in speed as great as that shown in Fig. 69, as the fact to be expected for a class of thirty-two 6 B pupils.
The variations within a class in respect to what processes are understood so as to be done with only occasional errors may be illustrated further as follows:--A teacher in grade 4 at or near the middle of the year in a city doing the customary work in arithmetic will probably find some pupil in her class who cannot do column addition even without carrying, or the easiest written subtraction
(8 9 78) (5 3 or 37) (- - --),
who does not know his multiplication tables or how to derive them, or understand the meanings of + - × and ÷, or have any useful ideas whatever about division.
There will probably be some child in the class who can do such work as that shown below, and with very few errors.
Add 3/8 + 5/8 + 7/8 + 1/8 2-1/2 1/6 + 3/8 6-3/8 3-3/4 -----
Subtract 10.00 4 yd. 1 ft. 6 in. 3.49 2 yd. 2 ft. 3 in. ----- ----------------------
Multiply 1-1/4 × 8 16 145 2-5/8 206 ------ --- _______ _____ Divide 2)13.50 25)9750
The invention of means of teaching thirty so different children at once with the maximum help and minimum hindrance from their different capacities and acquisitions is one of the great opportunities for applied science.
Courtis, emphasizing the social demand for a certain moderate arithmetical attainment in the case of nearly all elementary school children of, say, grade 6, has urged that definite special means be taken to bring the deficient children up to certain standards, without causing undesirable 'overlearning' by the more gifted children. Certain experimental work to this end has been carried out by him and others, but probably much more must be done before an authoritative program for securing certain minimum standards for all or nearly all pupils can be arranged.
THE CAUSES OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
The differences found among children of the same grade in the same city are due in large measure to inborn differences in their original natures. If, by a miracle, the children studied by Courtis, or by Woody, or by Kruse had all received exactly the same nurture from birth to date, they would still have varied greatly in arithmetical ability, perhaps almost as much as they now do vary.
The evidence for this is the general evidence that variation in original nature is responsible for much of the eventual variation found in intellectual and moral traits, plus certain special evidence in the case of arithmetical abilities themselves.
Thorndike found ['05] that in tests with addition and multiplication twins were very much more alike than siblings[24] two or three years apart in age, though the resemblance in home and school training in arithmetic should be nearly as great for the latter as for the former. Also the young twins (9-11) showed as close a resemblance in addition and multiplication as the older twins (12-15), although the similarities of training in arithmetic have had twice as long to operate in the latter case.
[24] Siblings is used for children of the same parents.
If the differences found, say among children in grade 6 in addition, were due to differences in the quantity and quality of training in addition which they have had, then by giving each of them 200 minutes of additional identical training the differences should be reduced. For the 200 minutes of identical training is a step toward equalizing training. It has been found in many investigations of the matter that when we make training in arithmetic more nearly equal for any group the variation within the group is not reduced.
On the contrary, equalizing training seems rather to increase differences. The superior individual seems to have attained his superiority by his own superiority of nature rather than by superior past training, for, during a period of equal training for all, he increases his lead. For example, compare the gains of different individuals due to about 300 minutes of practice in mental multiplication of a three-place number by a three-place number shown in Table 14 below, from data obtained by the author ['08].[25]
[25] Similar results have been obtained in the case of arithmetical and other abilities by Thorndike ['08, '10, '15, '16], Whitley ['11], Starch ['11], Wells ['12], Kirby ['13], Donovan and Thorndike ['13], Hahn and Thorndike ['14], and on a very large scale by Race in a study as yet unpublished.
TABLE 14
THE EFFECT OF EQUAL AMOUNTS OF PRACTICE UPON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE IN THE MULTIPLICATION OF THREE-PLACE NUMBERS
==================================================================== | AMOUNT | PERCENTAGE OF | |CORRECT FIGURES |----------------+--------------- | Initial | | Initial | | Score | Gain | Score | Gain -----------------------------------+---------+------+---------+----- Initially highest five individuals | 85 | 61 | 70 | 18 next five " | 56 | 51 | 68 | 10 next six " | 46 | 22 | 74 | 8 next six " | 38 | 8 | 58 | 12 next six " | 29 | 24 | 56 | 14 ====================================================================
THE INTERRELATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Achievement in arithmetic depends upon a number of different abilities. For example, accuracy in copying numbers depends upon eyesight, ability to perceive visual details, and short-term memory for these. Long column addition depends chiefly upon great strength of the addition combinations especially in higher decades, 'carrying,' and keeping one's place in the column. The solution of problems framed in words requires understanding of language, the analysis of the situation described into its elements, the selection of the right elements for use at each step and their use in the right relations.
Since the abilities which together constitute arithmetical ability are thus specialized, the individual who is the best of a thousand of his age or grade in respect to, say, adding integers, may occupy different stations, perhaps from 1st to 600th, in multiplying with integers, placing the decimal point in division with decimals, solving novel problems, copying figures, etc., etc. Such specialization is in part due to his having had, relatively to the others in the thousand, more or better training in certain of these abilities than in others, and to various circumstances of life which have caused him to have, relatively to the others in the thousand, greater interest in certain of these achievements than in others. The specialization is not wholly due thereto, however. Certain inborn characteristics of an individual predispose him to different degrees of superiority or inferiority to other men in different features of arithmetic.
We measure the extent to which ability of one sort goes with or fails to go with ability of some other sort by the coefficient of correlation between the two. If every individual keeps the same rank in the second ability--if the individual who is the best of the thousand in one is the best of the group in the other, and so on down the list--the correlation is 1.00. In proportion as the ranks of individuals vary in the two abilities the coefficient drops from 1.00, a coefficient of 0 meaning that the best individual in ability A is no more likely to be in first place in ability B than to be in any other rank.
The meanings of coefficients of correlation of .90, .70, .50, and 0 are shown by Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18.[26]
[26] Unless he has a thorough understanding of the underlying theory, the student should be very cautious in making inferences from coefficients of correlation.
TABLE 15
DISTRIBUTION OF ARRAYS IN SUCCESSIVE TENTHS OF THE GROUP WHEN _r_ = .90
====================================================================== |10TH |9TH |8TH |7TH |6TH |5TH |4TH |3D |2D |1ST ----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 1st tenth | | | | | .1 | .4 | 1.8 | 6.6 |22.4 |68.7 2d tenth | | | .1 | .4 | 1.4 | 4.7 |11.5 |23.5 |36.0 |22.4 3d tenth | | .1 | .5 | 2.1 | 5.8 |12.8 |21.1 |27.4 |23.5 | 6.6 4th tenth | | .4 | 2.1 | 6.4 |12.8 |20.1 |23.8 |21.2 |11.5 | 1.8 5th tenth | .1 | 1.4 | 5.8 |12.8 |19.3 |22.6 |20.1 |12.8 | 4.7 | .4 6th tenth | .4 | 4.7 |12.8 |20.1 |22.6 |19.3 |12.8 | 5.8 | 1.4 | .1 7th tenth | 1.8 |11.5 |21.2 |23.8 |20.1 |12.8 | 6.4 | 2.1 | .4 | 8th tenth | 6.6 |23.5 |27.4 |21.1 |12.8 | 5.8 | 2.1 | .5 | .1 | 9th tenth |22.4 |36.0 |23.5 |11.5 | 4.7 | 1.4 | .4 | .1 | | 10th tenth|68.7 |22.4 | 6.6 | 1.8 | .4 | .1 | | | | ======================================================================
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION OF ARRAYS IN SUCCESSIVE TENTHS OF THE GROUP WHEN _r_ = .70
====================================================================== |10TH |9TH |8TH |7TH |6TH |5TH |4TH |3D |2D |1ST ----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 1st tenth | | .2 | .7 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 8.0 |13.0 |22.3 |46.7 2d tenth | .2 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 4.5 | 7.0 | 9.8 |13.4 |17.3 |21.7 |22.3 3d tenth | .7 | 2.6 | 5.0 | 7.3 |10.0 |12.5 |14.9 |16.7 |17.3 |13.0 4th tenth | 1.5 | 4.5 | 7.3 | 9.8 |12.0 |13.7 |14.8 |14.9 |13.4 | 8.0 5th tenth | 2.8 | 7.0 |10.0 |12.0 |13.4 |14.0 |13.7 |12.5 | 9.8 | 4.8 6th tenth | 4.8 | 9.8 |12.5 |13.7 |14.0 |13.4 |12.0 |10.0 | 7.0 | 2.8 7th tenth | 8.0 |13.4 |14.9 |14.8 |13.7 |12.0 | 9.8 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 1.5 8th tenth |13.0 |17.3 |16.7 |14.9 |12.5 |10.0 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 2.6 | .7 9th tenth |22.3 |21.7 |17.3 |13.4 | 9.8 | 7.0 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 1.2 | .2 10th tenth|46.7 |22.3 |13.0 | 8.0 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 1.5 | .7 | .2 | ======================================================================
TABLE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF ARRAYS OF SUCCESSIVE TENTHS OF THE GROUP WHEN _r_ = .50
====================================================================== |10TH |9TH |8TH |7TH |6TH |5TH |4TH |3D |2D |1ST ----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 1st tenth | .8 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 4.6 | 6.2 | 8.1 |10.5 |13.9 |18.0 |31.8 2d tenth | 2.0 | 4.1 | 5.7 | 7.3 | 8.8 |10.5 |12.2 |14.1 |16.4 |18.9 3d tenth | 3.2 | 5.7 | 7.4 | 8.9 |10.0 |11.2 |12.3 |13.3 |14.1 |13.9 4th tenth | 4.6 | 7.3 | 8.8 | 9.9 |10.8 |11.6 |12.0 |12.3 |12.2 |10.5 5th tenth | 6.2 | 8.8 |10.0 |10.8 |11.3 |11.5 |11.6 |11.2 |10.5 | 8.1 6th tenth | 8.1 |10.5 |11.2 |11.6 |11.5 |11.3 |10.8 |10.0 | 8.8 | 6.2 7th tenth |10.5 |12.2 |12.3 |12.0 |11.6 |10.8 | 9.9 | 8.8 | 7.5 | 4.6 8th tenth |13.9 |14.1 |13.3 |12.3 |11.2 |10.0 | 8.8 | 7.4 | 5.7 | 3.2 9th tenth |18.9 |16.4 |14.1 |12.2 |10.5 | 8.8 | 7.3 | 5.7 | 4.1 | 2.0 10th tenth|31.8 |18.9 |13.9 |10.5 | 8.1 | 6.2 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 2.0 | .8 ======================================================================
TABLE 18
DISTRIBUTION OF ARRAYS, IN SUCCESSIVE TENTHS OF THE GROUP WHEN _r_ = .0
====================================================================== |10TH |9TH |8TH |7TH |6TH |5TH |4TH |3D |2D |1ST ----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 1st tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 2d tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 3d tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 4th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 5th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 6th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 7th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 8th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 9th tenth |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 10th tenth|10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 |10 ======================================================================
The significance of any coefficient of correlation depends upon the group of individuals for which it is determined. A correlation of .40 between computation and problem-solving in eighth-grade pupils of 14 years would mean a much closer real relation than a correlation of .40 in all 14-year-olds, and a very, very much closer relation than a correlation of .40 for all children 8 to 15.
Unless the individuals concerned are very elaborately tested on several days, the correlations obtained are "attenuated" toward 0 by the "accidental" errors in the original measurements. This effect was not known until 1904; consequently the correlations in the earlier studies of arithmetic are all too low.
In general, the correlation between ability in any one important feature of computation and ability in any other important feature of computation is high. If we make enough tests to measure each individual exactly in:--
(_A_) Subtraction with integers and decimals, (_B_) Multiplication with integers and decimals, (_C_) Division with integers and decimals, (_D_) Multiplication and division with common fractions, and (_E_) Computing with percents,
we shall probably find the intercorrelations for a thousand 14-year-olds to be near .90. Addition of integers (_F_) will, however, correlate less closely with any of the above, being apparently dependent on simpler and more isolated abilities.
The correlation between problem-solving (_G_) and computation will be very much less, probably not over .60.
It should be noted that even when the correlation is as high as .90, there will be some individuals very high in one ability and very low in the other. Such disparities are to some extent, as Courtis ['13, pp. 67-75] and Cobb ['17] have argued, due to inborn characteristics of the individual in question which predispose him to very special sorts of strength and weakness. They are often due, however, to defects in his learning whereby he has acquired more ability than he needs in one line of work or has failed to acquire some needed ability which was well within his capacity.
In general, all correlations between an individual's divergence from the common type or average of his age for one arithmetical function, and his divergences from the average for any other arithmetical function, are positive. The correlation due to original capacity more than counterbalances the effects that robbing Peter to pay Paul may have.
Speed and accuracy are thus positively correlated. The individuals who do the most work in ten minutes will be above the average in a test of accuracy. The common notion that speed is opposed to accuracy is correct when it means that the same person will tend to make more errors if he works at too rapid a rate; but it is entirely wrong when it means that the kind of person who works more rapidly than the average person is likely to be less accurate than the average person.
Interest in arithmetic and ability at arithmetic are probably correlated positively in the sense that the pupil who has more interest than other pupils of his age tends in the long run to have more ability than they. They are certainly correlated in the sense that the pupil who 'likes' arithmetic better than geography or history tends to have relatively more ability in arithmetic, or, in other words, that the pupil who is more gifted at arithmetic than at drawing or English tends also to like it better than he likes these. These correlations are high.
It is correct then to think of mathematical ability as, in a sense, a unitary ability of which any one individual may have much or little, most individuals possessing a moderate amount of it. This is consistent, however, with the occasional appearance of individuals possessed of very great talents for this or that particular feature of mathematical ability and equally notable deficiencies in other features.
Finally it may be noted that ability in arithmetic, though occasionally found in men otherwise very stupid, is usually associated with superior intelligence in dealing with ideas and symbols of all sorts, and is one of the best early indications thereof.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES MADE IN THE TEXT
Ames, A. F., and McLellan, J. F.; '00 Public School Arithmetic.
Ballou, F. W.; '16 Determining the Achievements of Pupils in the Addition of Fractions. School Document No. 3, 1916, Boston Public Schools.
Brandell, G.; '13 Skolbarns intressen. Translated ['15] by W. Stern as, Das Interesse der Schulkinder an den Unterrichtsfächern.
Brandford, B.; '08 A Study of Mathematical Education.
Brown, J. C.; '11, '12 An Investigation on the Value of Drill Work in the Fundamental Operations in Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 81-88, vol. 3, pp. 485-492 and 561-570.
Brown, J. C. and Coffman, L. D.; '14 How to Teach Arithmetic.
Burgerstein, L.; '91 Die Arbeitscurve einer Schulstunde. Zeitschrift für Schulgesundheitspflege, vol. 4, pp. 543-562 and 607-627.
Burnett, C. J.; '06 The Estimation of Number. Harvard Psychological Studies, vol. 2, pp. 349-404.
Burt, C.; '17 The Distribution and Relations of Educational Abilities. Report of The London County Council, No. 1868.
Chapman, J. C.; '14 Individual Differences in Ability and Improvement and Their Correlations. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 63.
Chapman, J. C.; '17 The Scientific Measurement of Classroom Products. (With G. P. Rush.)
Cobb, M. V.; '17 A Preliminary Study of the Inheritance of Arithmetical Abilities. Jour. of Educational Psychology, vol. 8, pp. 1-20. Jan., 1917.
Coffman, L. D., and Brown, J. C.; '14 How to Teach Arithmetic.
Coffman, L. D., and Jessup, W. A.; '16 The Supervision of Arithmetic.
Courtis, S. A.; '09, '10, '11 Measurement of Growth and Efficiency in Arithmetic. Elementary School Teacher, vol. 10, pp. 58-74 and 177-199, vol. 11, pp. 171-185, 360-370, and 528-539.
Courtis, S. A.; '11, '12 Report on Educational Aspects of the Public School System of the City of New York. Part II, Subdivision 1, Section D. Report on the Courtis Tests in Arithmetic.
Courtis, S. A.; '13 Courtis Standard Tests. Second Annual Accounting.
Courtis, S. A.; '14 Manual of Instructions for Giving and Scoring the Courtis Standard Tests in the Three R's. Department of Comparative Research, 82 Elliot St., Detroit, Mich., 1914.
Decroly, M., and Degand, J.; '12 L'evolution des notions de quantités continues et discontinues chez l'enfant. Archives de psychologie, vol. 12, pp. 81-121.
Degand, J. _See_ Decroly.
De Voss, J. C. _See_ Monroe, De Voss, and Kelly.
Dewey, J.; '10 How We Think.
Dewey, J., and McLellan, J. A.; '95 Psychology of Number and Its Applications to Methods of Teaching Arithmetic.
Donovan, M. E., and Thorndike, E. L.; '13 Improvement in a Practice Experiment under School Conditions. American Journal of Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 426-428.
Elliott, C. H.; '14 Variation in the Achievements of Pupils. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education, No. 72.
Flynn, F. J.; '12 Mathematical Games--Adaptations from Games Old and New. Teachers College Record, vol. 13, pp. 399-412.
Freeman, F. N.; '10 Untersuchungen über den Aufmerksamkeitsumfang und die Zahlauffassung. Pädagogische-Psychologische Arbeiten, I, 88-168.
Friedrich, J.; '97 Untersuchungen über die Einflüsse der Arbeitsdauer und die Arbeitspausen auf die geistige Leistungsfähigkeit der Schulkinder. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, vol. 13, pp. 1-53.
Gilbert, J. A.; '94 Researches on the Mental and Physical Development of School Children. Studies from the Yale Psychological Laboratory, vol. 2, pp. 40-100.
Greenleaf, B.; '73 Practical Arithmetic.
Hahn, H. H., and Thorndike, E. L.; '14 Some Results of Practice in Addition under School Conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 65-84.
Hall, G. S.; '83 The Contents of Children's Minds on Entering School. Princeton Review, vol. II, pp. 249-272, May, 1883. Reprinted in Aspects of Child Life and Education, 1907.
Hartmann, B.; '90 Die Analyze des Kindlichen Gedanken-Kreises als die Naturgemässedes Ersten Schulunterrichts, 1890.
Heck, W. H.; '13 A Study of Mental Fatigue.
Heck, W. H.; '13 A Second Study in Mental Fatigue in the Daily School Program. Psychological Clinic, vol. 7, pp. 29-34.
Hoffmann, P.; '11 Das Interesse der Schüler an den Unterrichtsfächern. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, XII, 458-470.
Hoke, K. J., and Wilson, G. M.; '20 How to Measure.
Holmes, M. E.; '95 The Fatigue of a School Hour. Pedagogical Seminary, vol. 3, pp. 213-234.
Howell, H. B.; '14 A Foundation Study in the Pedagogy of Arithmetic.
Hunt, C. W.; '12 Play and Recreation in Arithmetic. Teachers College Record, vol. 13, pp. 388-398.
Jessup, W. A., and Coffman, L. D.; '16 The Supervision of Arithmetic.
Kelly, F. J. _See_ Monroe, De Voss and Kelly.
King, A. C.; '07 The Daily Program in Elementary Schools. MSS.
Kirby, T. J.; '13 Practice in the Case of School Children. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 58.
Klapper, P.; '16 The Teaching of Arithmetic.
Kruse, P. J.; '18 The Overlapping of Attainments in Certain Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Grades. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education, No. 92.
Laser, H.; '94 Ueber geistige Ermüdung beim Schulunterricht. Zeitschrift für Schulgesundheitspflege, vol. 7, pp. 2-22.
Lay, W. A.; '98 Führer durch den ersten Rechenunterricht.
Lay, W. A.; '07 Führer durch den Rechenunterricht der Unterstufe.
Lewis, E. O.; '13 Popular and Unpopular School-Subjects. The Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, vol. 2, pp. 89-98.
Lobsien, M.; '03 Kinderideale. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, V, 323-344 and 457-494.
Lobsien, M.; '09 Beliebtheit und Unbeliebtheit der Unterrichtsfächer. Pädagogisches Magazin, Heft 361.
McCall, W. A.; '21 How to Measure in Education.
McDougle, E. C.; '14 A Contribution to the Pedagogy of Arithmetic. Pedagogical Seminary, vol. 21, pp. 161-218.
McKnight, J.A.; '07 Differentiation of the Curriculum in the Upper Grammar Grades. MSS. in the library of Teachers College, Columbia University.
McLellan, J.A., and Dewey, J.; '95 Psychology of Number and Its Applications to Methods of Teaching.
McLellan, J.A., and Ames, A.F.; '00 Public School Arithmetic.
Messenger, J.F.; '03 The Perception of Number. Psychological Review, Monograph Supplement No. 22.
Meumann, E.; '07 Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die experimentelle Pädagogik.
Mitchell, H.E.; '20 Unpublished studies of the uses of arithmetic in factories, shops, farms, and the like.
Monroe, W.S., De Voss, J.C., and Kelly, F.J.; '17 Educational Tests and Measurements.
Nanu, H.A.; '04 Zur Psychologie der Zahl Auffassung.
National Intelligence Tests; '20 Scale A, Form 1, Edition 1.
Phillips, D.E.; '97 Number and Its Application Psychologically Considered. Pedagogical Seminary, vol. 5, pp. 221-281.
Pommer, O.; '14 Die Erforschung der Beliebtheit der Unterrichtsfächer. Ihre psychologischen Grundlagen und ihre pädagog. Bedeutung. VII. Jahresber. des k.k. Ssaatsgymn. im XVIII Bez. v. Wien.
Rice, J.M.; '02 Test in Arithmetic. Forum, vol. 34, pp. 281-297.
Rice, J.M.; '03 Causes of Success and Failure in Arithmetic. Forum, vol. 34, pp. 437-452.
Rush, G.P.; '17 The Scientific Measurement of Classroom Products. (With J. C. Chapman.)
Seekel, E.; '14 Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Beliebtheit und der Schwierigkeit der Schulfächer. Ergebnisse einer Erhebung. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie 9. S. 268-277.
Selkin, F. B.; '12 Number Games Bordering on Arithmetic and Algebra. Teachers College Record, vol. 13, pp. 452-493.
Smith, D. E.; '01 The Teaching of Elementary Mathematics.
Smith, D. E.; '11 The Teaching of Arithmetic.
Speer, W. W.; '97 Arithmetic: Elementary for Pupils.
Starch, D.; '11 Transfer of Training in Arithmetical Operations. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 306-310.
Starch, D.; '16 Educational Measurements.
Stern, W.; '05 Ueber Beliebtheit und Unbeliebtheit der Schulfächer. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, VII, 267-296.
Stern, C., and Stern, W.; '13 Beliebtheit und Schwierigkeit der Schulfächer. (Freie Schulgemeinde Wickersdorf.) Auf Grund der von Herrn Luserke beschafften Materialien bearbeitet. In: "Die Ausstellung zur vergleichenden Jungendkunde der Geschlechter in Breslau." Arbeit 7 des Bundes für Schulreform. S. 24-26.
Stern, W.; '14 Zur vergleichenden Jugendkunde der Geschlechter. Vortrag. III. Deutsch. Kongr. f. Jugendkunde usw. Arbeiten 8 des Bundes für Schulreform. S. 17-38.
Stone, C.W.; '08 Arithmetical Abilities and Some Factors Determining Them. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 19.
Suzzallo, H.; '11 The Teaching of Primary Arithmetic.
Thorndike, E.L.; '00 Mental Fatigue. Psychological Review, vol. 7, pp. 466-482 and 547-579.
Thorndike, E.L.; '08 The Effect of Practice in the Case of a Purely Intellectual Function. American Journal of Psychology, vol. 10, pp. 374-384.
Thorndike, E.L.; '10 Practice in the case of Addition. American Journal of Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 483-486.
Thorndike, E.L., and Donovan, M.E.; '13 Improvement in a Practice Experiment under School Conditions. American Journal of Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 426-428.
Thorndike, E.L., and Donovan, M.E., and Hahn, H.H.; '14 Some Results of Practice in Addition under School Conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 65-84.
Thorndike, E.L.; '15 The Relation between Initial Ability and Improvement in a Substitution Test. School and Society, vol. 12, p. 429.
Thorndike, E.L.; '16 Notes on Practice, Improvability and the Curve of Work. American Journal of Psychology, vol 27, pp. 550-565.
Walsh, J.H.; '06 Grammar School Arithmetic.
Wells, F.L.; '12 The Relation of Practice to Individual Differences. American Journal of Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 75-88.
White, E. E.; '83 A New Elementary Arithmetic.
Whitley, M. T.; '11 An Empirical Study of Certain Tests for Individual Differences. Archives of Psychology, No. 19.
Wiederkehr, G.; '07 Statistiche Untersuchungen über die Art und den Grad des Interesses bei Kindern der Volksschule. Neue Bahnen, vol. 19, pp. 241-251, 289-299.
Wilson, G. M.; '19 A Survey of the Social and Business Usage of Arithmetic. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 100.
Wilson, G. M., and Hoke, K. J.; '20 How to Measure.
Woody, C.; '10 Measurements of Some Achievements in Arithmetic. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 80.
INDEX
Abilities, arithmetical, nature of, 1 ff.; measurement of, 27 ff.; constitution of, 51 ff.; organization of, 137 ff.
Abstract numbers, 85 ff.
Abstraction, 169 ff.
Accuracy, in relation to speed, 31; in fundamental operations, 102 ff.
Addition, measurement of, 27 ff., 34; constitution of, 52 f.; habit in relation to, 71 f.; in the higher decades, 75 f.; accuracy in, 108 f.; amount of practice in, 122 ff.; interest in 196 f.
Aims of the teaching of arithmetic, 23 f.
AMES, A. F., 89
Analysis, learning by, 169 ff.; systematic and opportunistic stimuli to, 178 f.; gradual progress in, 180 ff.
Area, 257 f., 275
Arithmetic, sociology of, 24 ff.
Arithmetical abilities. _See_ Abilities.
Arithmetical language, 8 f., 19, 89 ff., 94 ff.
Arithmetical learning, before school, 199 ff.; conditions of, 227 ff.; in relation to time of day, 227 ff.; in relation to time devoted to arithmetic, 228 ff.
Arithmetical reasoning. _See_ Reasoning.
Arithmetical terms, 8, 19
Averages, 40 f.; 135 f.
BALLOU, F. W., 34, 38
Banking, 256 f.
BINET, A., 201
Bonds, selection of, 70 ff.; strength of, 102 ff.; for temporary service, 111 ff.; order of formation of, 141 ff. _See also_ Habits.
BRANDELL, G., 211
BRANDFORD, B., 198 f.
BROWN, J. C., xvi, 103
BURGERSTEIN, L., 103
BURNETT, C. J., 202
BURT, C., 286
Cardinal and ordinal numbers confused, 206
Catch problems, 21 ff.
CHAPMAN, J. C., 49
Class, size of, in relation to arithmetical learning, 228; variation within a, 289 ff.
COBB, M. V., 299
COFFMAN, L. D., xvi
Collection meaning of numbers, 3 ff.
Computation, measurements of, 33 ff.; explanations of the processes in, 60 ff.; accuracy in, 102 ff. _See also_ Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, Fractions, Decimal numbers, Percents.
Concomitants, law of varying, 172 ff.; law of contrasting, 173 ff.
Concrete numbers, 85 ff.
Concrete objects, use of, 253 ff.
Conditions of arithmetical learning, 227 ff.
Constitution of arithmetical abilities, 51 ff.
Copying of numbers, eyestrain due to, 212 f.
Correlations of arithmetical abilities, 295 ff.
Courses of study, 232 f.
COURTIS, S. A., 28 ff., 43 ff., 49, 103, 291, 293, 299
Crutches, 112 f.
Culture-epoch theory, 198 f.
Dairy records, 273
Decimal numbers, uses of, 24 f.; measurement of ability with, 36 ff.; learning, 181 ff.; division by, 270 f.
DE CROLY, M., 205
Deductive reasoning, 60 ff., 185 ff.
DEGAND, J., 205
Denominate numbers, 141 f., 147 f.
Described problems, 10 ff.
Development of knowledge of number, 205 ff.
DE VOSS, J. C., 49
DEWEY, J., 3, 83, 150, 205, 207, 208, 219, 266, 277
Differences in arithmetical ability, 285 ff.; within a class, 289 ff.
Difficulty as a stimulus, 277 ff.
Drill, 102 ff.
Discipline, mental, 20
Distribution of practice, 156 ff.
Division, measurement of, 35 f., 37; constitution of, 57 ff.; deductive explanations of, 63, 64 f.; inductive explanations of, 63 f., 65 f.; habit in relation to, 72; with remainders, 76; with fractions, 78 ff.; amount of practice in, 122 ff.; distribution of practice in, 167; use of the problem attitude in teaching, 270 f.
DONOVAN, M. E., 295
Elements, responses to, 169 ff.
Eleven, multiples of, 85
ELLIOTT, C. H., 228
Equation form, importance of, 77 f.
Explanations of the processes of computation, 60 ff.; memory of, 115 f.; time for giving, 154 ff.
Eyestrain in arithmetical work, 212 ff.
Facilitation, 143 ff.
Figures, printing of, 235 ff.; writing of, 214 f., 241
FLYNN, F. J., 196
Fractions, uses of, 24 f.; measurement of ability with, 36 ff.; knowledge of the meaning of, 54 ff.
FREEMAN, F. N., 259, 261
FRIEDRICH, J., 103
Generalization, 169 ff.
GILBERT, J. A., 203
Graded tests, 28 ff., 36 ff.
Greatest common divisor, 88 f.
Habits, importance of, in arithmetical learning, 70 ff.; now neglected, 75 ff.; harmful or wasteful, 83 ff.; 91 ff.; propædeutic, 117 ff.; organization of, 137 ff.; arrangement of, 141 ff.
HAHN, H. H., 295
HALL, G. S., 200 f.
HARTMANN, B., 200 f.
HECK, W. H., 227
Heredity in arithmetical abilities, 293 ff.
Highest common factor, 88 f.
HOKE, K. J., 49
HOLMES, M. E., 103
HOWELL, H. B., 259
HUNT, C. W., 196
Hygiene of arithmetic, 212 ff., 234 ff.
Individual differences, 285 ff.
Inductive reasoning, 60 ff., 169 ff.
Insurance, 256
Interest as a principle determining the order of topics, 150 ff.
Interests, instinctive 195 ff.; censuses of, 209 ff.; neglect of childish, 226 ff.; in self-management, 223 f.; intrinsic, 224 ff.
Interference, 143 ff.
Inventories of arithmetical knowledge and skill, 199 ff.
JESSUP, W. A., xvi
KELLY, F. J., 49
KING, A. C., 103, 227
KIRBY, T. J., 76 f., 104, 295
KLAPPER, P., xvi
KRUSE, P. J., 289, 293
Ladder tests, 28 ff., 36 ff.
Language in arithmetic, 8 f., 19, 89 ff., 94 ff.
LASER, H., 103
LAY, W. A., 259, 261
Learning, nature of arithmetical, 1 ff.
Least common multiple, 88 f.
LEWIS, E. O., 210 f.
LOBSIEN, M., 209 f.
MCCALL, W. A., 49
MCDOUGLE, E. C., 85 ff.
MCKNIGHT, J. A., 210
MCLELLAN, J. A., 3, 83, 89, 205, 207
Manipulation of numbers, 60 ff.
Meaning, of numbers, 2 ff., 171; of a fraction, 54 ff.; of decimals, 181 f.
Measurement of arithmetical abilities, 27 ff.
Mental arithmetic, 262 ff.
MESSENGER, J. F., 202
Metric system, 147
MEUMANN, E., 261
MITCHELL, H. E., 24
MONROE, W. S., 49
Multiplication, measurement of, 35, 36; constitution of, 51; deductive explanations of, 61; inductive explanations of, 61 f.; with fractions, 78 ff.; by eleven, 85; amount of practice in, 122 ff.; order of learning the elementary facts of, 144 f.; distribution of practice in, 158 ff.; use of the problem attitude in teaching, 267 ff.
NANU, H. A., 202
National Intelligence Tests, 49 f.
Negative reaction in intellectual life, 278 f.
Number pictures, 259 ff.
Numbers, meaning of, 2; as measures of continuous quantities, 75; abstract and concrete, 85 ff.; denominate, 141 f., 147 f.; use of large, 145 f.; perception of, 205 ff.; early awareness of, 205 ff.; confusion of cardinal and ordinal, 206. _See also_ Decimal numbers _and_ Fractions.
Objective aids, used for verification, 154; in general, 243 ff.
Oral arithmetic, 262 ff.
Order of topics, 141 ff.
Ordinal numbers, confused with cardinal, 206
Original tendencies and arithmetic, 195 ff.
Overlearning, 134 ff.
Percents, 80 f.
Perception of number, 202 ff.
PHILLIPS, D. E., 3, 4, 205, 207
Pictures, hygiene of, 246 ff.; number, 259 ff.
POMMER, O., 212
Practice, amount of, 122 ff.; distribution of, 156 ff.
Precision in fundamental operations, 102 ff.
Problem attitude, 266 ff.
Problems, 9 ff.; "catch," 21 ff.; measurement of ability with, 42 ff.; whose answer must be known in order to frame them, 93 f.; verbal form of, 111 f.; interest in, 220 ff.; as introductions to arithmetical learning, 266 ff.
Propædeutic bonds, 117 ff.
Purposive thinking, 193 ff.
Quantity, number and, 85 ff.; perception of, 202 ff.
RACE, H., 295
Rainfall, 272
Ratio, 225 f.; meaning of numbers, 3 ff.
Reaction, negative, 278 f.
Reality, in problems, 9 ff.
Reasoning, arithmetical, nature of, 19 ff.; measurement of ability in, 42 ff.; derivation of tables by, 58 f.; about the rationale of computations, 60 ff.; habit in relation to, 73 f., 190 ff.; problems which provoke false, 100 f.; the essentials of arithmetical, 185 ff.; selection in, 187 ff.; as the coöperation of organized habits, 190 ff.
Recapitulation theory, 198 f.
Recipes, 273 f.
Rectangle, area of, 257 f.
RICE, J. M., 228 ff.
RUSH, G. P., 49
SEEKEL, E., 212
SELKIN, F. B., 196 f.
Sequence of topics, 141 ff.
Series meaning of numbers, 2 ff.
Size of class in relation to arithmetical learning, 228
SMITH, D. E., xvi, 224
Social instincts, use of, 195 f.
Sociology of arithmetic, 24 ff.
Speed in relation to accuracy, 31, 108
SPEER, W. W., 3, 5, 83
Spiral order, 141, 145
STARCH, D., 49, 295
STERN, W., 210, 212
STONE, C. W., 27 ff., 42 ff., 228 ff.
Subtraction, measurement of, 34 f.; constitution of, 57 f.; amount of practice in, 122 ff.
Supervision, 233 f.
SUZZALLO, H., xvi
Temporary bonds, 111 ff.
Terms, 113 f.
Tests of arithmetical abilities, 27 ff.
THORNDIKE, E. L., 34, 38 ff., 227, 294
Time, devoted to arithmetic, 228 ff.; of day, in relation to arithmetical learning, 227 f.
Type, hygiene of, 235 ff.
Underlearning, 134 ff.
United States money, 148 ff.
Units of measure, arbitrary, 5, 83 f.
Variation, among individuals, 285 ff.
Variety, in teaching, 153
Verification, 81 f.; aided by greater strength of the fundamental bonds, 107 ff.
WALSH, J. H., 11
WELLS, F. L., 295
WHITE, E. E., 5
WHITLEY, M. T., 295
WIEDERKEHR, G., 212
WILSON, G. M., 24, 49
WOODY, C., 29 ff., 52, 287, 293
Words. _See_ Language _and_ Terms.
Written arithmetic, 262 ff.
Zero in multiplication, 179 f.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.
2. Passages in bold are indicated by #bold#.
3. Mixed fractions are represented using forward slash and hyphen in this text version. For example, 5-1/2 represents five and a half.
4. Images and footnotes have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest paragraph break.
5. Obvious errors in spelling and punctuation have been silently closed.