this unnecessary. Nor shall I undertake to give any description of the human side of the experiment, the almost unbelievable resourcefulness and intelligence displayed by the children in the "Experimental School," as it was frankly designated in the community. Here was the working out of a genuine problem in terms of the actual growth of boys and girls. It is of the nature of true scientific experiment, because it was not merely an attempt to put through a program (which sometimes masquerades as an experiment); but submitted its findings to comparison with 'control' schools. The problem itself, which first grew out of an actual experience in the school life of the author, stated in its briefest form was as follows: "Can the country school curriculum be selected directly from the purposes of boys and girls in real life? If so, to what extent, with what effect, and under what conditions?" Standardized tests and scales were freely used to compare the equivalent groups-the school selected to be the "Experimental School" and two other rural schools of the same county selected as "control schools." The tests and measurements were applied at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of the four years, both to the experimental school in which the curriculum had grown entirely out of the interests and aims of the pupils themselves and to the control schools, otherwise in all respects practically the same, where the usual approved and standardized curriculum was administered in the usual manner. When I have read the striking, the almost sensational results of this experiment to my classes, I have found some of the students frankly incredulous, others kindling with enthusiasm as they saw educational principles hitherto regarded by them as more or less philosophical and ideal now triumphantly carried out in practice. I cannot hope to bring out the true significance of this experiment in education without going much further into the details than time permits. It is a remarkable and yet a fundamentally simple combination of human nature and scientific method. Instead of there being any antagonism between these two aspects, there is mutual reinforcement. The medium is that of growth, observed in terms of a working hypothesis of fundamental principles, and safe-guarded at nearly every conceivable point with critical analysis and the best available technique of measurement. The result, while modestly stated, is brilliant. It is revolutionary—as science is often revolutionary and subversive of dearly cherished illusions. To sum up briefly our attempt to appreciate something of what experiment is coming to mean in the schools: (1) True experiment in teaching arises out of the experience of the individual most immediately concerned in the activity. As it develops it takes on the most carefully controlled quantitative technique available. Instead of merely putting over a program which in terms of opinion or past experience is believed to be the best, it is bent on finding out some actually better way or some new fact or principle. (2) In educational work the subject for scientific study and experimental control is so complex and confused, so heavily weighted with the baggage of tradition, so hobby ridden, and so palavered over, that a high degree of division of labor or specialization is necessary. Specific questions need to be attacked one at a time by this, that or the other experimentalist. Here and there such pioneers appear and work at relative disadvantage, because of comparative isolation. (3) If public education is to become fully conscious of its conditions of growth and develop its own aims and ideals in the most effective manner, there must be an increasing recognition of the role of experimental inquiry in the schools-not only in the hands of specialists but as a possibility for every one concerned in the business of teaching. STANDARD TESTS IN HISTORY C By ALICE M. DAVIES, Parker Practice School OMPLEXITY of subject matter and differences in teachers' estimates of pupils' work make it very necessary to construct tests, examinations, and other devices which enable the history teacher to score and grade various types of history exercises with more precision and care than is possible under the old-fashioned examination system. There have appeared many objectors to the old type of formal examination. They are asking for certain types of standardized tests in order to determine objectively the results of instruction in history. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to discuss the value of tests, to describe some of their defects, and to point out some of their general characteristics. Most of the existing standard tests aim to measure some phase of history. The majority of these have not as yet been well standardized, as the movement is still in the experimental stage, both from the standpoint of measuring the teacher's efficiency in instruction, and from the standpoint of measuring the pupil's proficiency in manipulating a hodgepodge of material which he is supposed to keep forever on tap at the call of some instructor, be it history or otherwise. These so-called standard tests may be classified according to the purpose which their makers have in mind when formulating them. Their main characteristics show that there has been an attempt to measure the amount of information that the pupil has accumulated from various history courses, or to test a pupil's ability to reason, pass judgment, make inferences, apply historical material, etc. Often these purposes overlap. A majority of tests in history have made use, first of all, of facts or information of a historical character; in fact, more has been done by way of the informational test than in any of the others previously mentioned. It is this type of test that is most open to criticism, as it emphasizes the child's ability to remember at the expense of thought or reasoning. Professor Johnson has stated in his book called the "Teaching of History," that a history examination reduced wholly to memory is unfair, unreasonable, and a standing inducement to reduce history teaching to memorizing. He says, furthermore, "To examine in facts alone is in no real sense to examine in history." It is assumed that the readiness with which students answer questions, either calling up a group of related or unrelated facts, is a measure of what is supposed to be historic mindedness. From the standpoint of psychologists who have looked deeply into the matter of history tests, most of them call up an association or a train of ideas. In some tests dates are given, as 1492, 1620, 1789, and 1861. The pupil is asked to state an important event following each date. Sometimes battles are mentioned and the student is asked to give its special significance. The Harlan, Raynor, and Starch tests are completion tests. In these tests the student is supposed to insert, in blank spaces, the correct responses to certain historical information. The material in these exercises is so arranged that the insertion of responses in the blanks makes a complete sentence. Some tests, as the Davis, suggest answers, and the pupils are supposed to underline the correct answers, as: "The Mayflower was a hall, chapel, hotel, plant, ship." Most of these tests involve only memory, which is a very elementary association. During the past three or four years, however, there have been several attempts made to correlate the memory, judgment, and reasoning abilities. Buckingham has 1"Judging from the content of the Starch, Sackett, or Davis tests, we might assume that the aim in history teaching is the imparting of facts, to make the child a walking encyclopedia."-O. H. Gibson, Rockford, Illinois, High School. Historical Outlook, December, 1921. been trying to find out whether pupils who rank high in memory ability, rank equally as well in reasoning and judgment. "The results of his experiments in a New York City school show a correlation of 0.4 between ability to think and ability to remember."2 Such tests as the Buckingham, Van Wagenen, Barr, and Rugg call up these more complex thinking processes. In order to measure this Dr. Van Wagenen has introduced "character judgment" factors in his tests. In this kind of test the pupil's idea of a person is obtained by "quoting a historic passage, portraying some act of this person and then asking the student to underline, out of eight or nine suggested adjectives, three which best describe the character of that act." A. S. Barr in his diagnostic tests attempts to measure such things as historical comprehension, inference, and constructive imagination. He quotes historical passages and asks responses in the form of questions. Mr. Barr states that the material must be carefully gone over, revised, and given to large groups of pupils before predictions can be made. He has also made studies of historical judgment, and has tested "chronological, casual, and critical judgment." These tests give different classes of events, as military, political, and social. The pupils number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., in the order in which they appear from the point of view of time. For critical judgment he is asked to mark various types of history books in order to indicate his facility in distinguishing text, sources, biography, etc. The casual judgment of pupils is measured by the ability of pupils to pick out an answer from several suggested ones that relate most closely to the cause of some historic fact. To prove that one's judgment is trained through history there are "tests which measure more intricate historical outcomes." In the field of history tests, therefore, we find those that make ability to remember the primary end and those which are concerned with the higher mental processes as an end also. It is a well known fact that pupils do not retain much historical information. In his book, "The Curriculum," Dr. Bobbitt states that we must not hold the child for detailed facts. He urges that the child, through extensive reading, gain all the experiences possible, vicariously or otherwise. He says, furthermore, that history is of value only inasmuch as it helps us to understand today's problem, and that the course of study should be so devised as to meet the needs of the child, either in future school life or as an adult. Many tests may be criticised for the following reasons: (1) They do not have material vital to the course of study. (2) Some authors have shown unfamiliarity with the field of history and in many tests content is included which is not taught nowadays. (3) Many of the facts called for or emphasized are not always of importance. This is particularly true of the Starch, Sackett, and Davis tests. (4) Many tests are too long for the allotted time. Pupils in the grades are allowed no more time than the pupils in high school. (5) In some cases the mechanics of writing, spelling, and English may prove of great hindrance to the younger students. In this case, instead of writing, it would be better to have the pupil underscore the correct answer rather than have him correct answer it. (6) Most tests can be used only once and soon the teacher is found to be drilling on the test, which spoils its value for future use. (7) Another criticism is that most of the tests cover the entire course of American history from 1492 to the present time. The best way to use tests, according to Dr. Davis, is to tests covering one field of history. (8) The last criticism is found in the difficulty of properly scoring the tests. "This is particularly true when the author has set up an arbitrary system for grading and maintains there is only one correct answer." This state of affairs will be found in various questions in the Van Wagenen and in the Harlan tests. However, there may be many favorable things to be said for tests. Any of these 2Correlation Between Ability to Think and Ability to Remember."-School and Society, V, Page 445. tests may be given by the history teacher with profit, if for no other reason than to enable her to test the efficiency of her teaching and to see how well the pupils are getting the material in their history courses. Supervisors, also, by means of standard tests, may compare the work of one school with another. The following tests may be classed as informational: McCollum's United States History Scale; Van Wagenen's American History Information Test A; Hahn's History Scale; Starch's American History Test; and Davis' American History Test. The next group involves a combination of thought and information: Harlan's Test of American History; Sackett's Ancient History Scale; and the Spokane United States History Test. Van Wagenen's American History Scale A, is listed as an entirely judgment test, while Barr's Diagnostic Test in American History, Series 2A and 2B, is classed as an ability test. Van Wagenen's Character Judgment Scale A is listed as a character test. In the opinion of the writer the Van Wagenen thought, information, and judgment tests and the Barr diagnostic tests come closer to meeting the requirements of adequate tests. Especially in the Barr tests does the author try to test the comprehension of the pupils, their ability to organize, evaluate, and to see cause and effect relationships. Authors of future tests will do well to take the advice of Professor Johnson when he says that "It is, indeed, doubtful if more than a fourth, or perhaps a third, of the examination should be devoted to tests of ability to remember. The remainder of the paper could then be devoted to tests of ability to do: to interpret a map or picture; to analize a paragraph or a page of history; to find materials on a given topic; to solve by use of given materials a simple problem in criticism; to recognize in facts different degrees of probability; to judge from a given description To summarize, the writer has attempted to show that standardized history tests. are valuable when used to check the basic aims and outcomes of history teaching; to improve classroom instruction; when they are made suitable to individuals and graded according to the ability of the different classes in school; when they can be scored easily and accurately; and when history courses of study are based around really "essential experiences." Tests should measure only one variable at a time, as memory, or judgment, or reasoning, etc. They should be objective in character, mathematically precise, verifiable, and suited to the experience of the learner. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bobbitt "The Curriculum." Buckingham-"Correlation Between Ability to Think and Ability to Remember," School and Society, V. Article on Standardized Tests in History, Historical Outlook, June, 1920. Articles on Standardized Tests in History, Historical Outlook, November and December, 1923. Johnson-"Teaching of History in the Elementary and Secondary Schools." Chapter on History, Los Angeles Bulletin. Parker "Types of Teaching in the Elementary Schools." the Junior and Senior High Schools." Tryon "The Teaching of History in Wayland-"How to Teach American History." Johnson, "Teaching of History in Elementary and Secondary Schools," Page 428. WHAT MENTAL TESTS MEAN TO THE AT CLASS-ROOM TEACHER By ARTHUR O. RAPE, Principal, Ray School T THE Ray School we have been a little slow getting into the testing movement but there have been some gains by not being too fast. There is so much prejudice against mental and achievement tests that it pays to go slowly and carefully in order to get benefits from them without any unfortunate results. Our general plan has been to give no test that will not help us in some way to do better classroom teaching; and to consider, that the tests are not the sole factors, but that they must be combined with the factors of health, or social development, and the teachers' estimates of work. We first gave the Illinois examination to a picked group of thirty-seven children, from six different rooms, who were "problems" in some way or other. The results when analyzed were surprising and convincing. After that there were more requests from the teachers to have the tests extended to the whole rooms than one could easily accommodate. Before the first semester was over all rooms having grades three to eight had been given the same test. Now for the results. First, the results as tabulated showed conclusively that those in the lead in every class were very largely the youngest children and that the oldest and largest children were at the bottom, in mental age and achievement. Another thing that was plain was that teachers' estimates as to general classroom work differed greatly from the mental age of pupils. In but one case was there a very close correlation. Where there were two classes in a room there was much overlapping both as to mental age and chronological age. We could not help concluding that our markings were not uniform nor steady. The second part of the test, which measures achievement in arithmetic and silent reading, when combined with the mental age, was of more direct benefit. Every room report showed that the teacher was getting 100% or more achievement when mental ages were considered; that the bright children were the ones neglected, and that the slow and over-age pupils were taking the major part of the teachers' energy and time. This was true in every room and with every teacher. The third part, that concerning individuals, was very helpful in diagnosing just what the trouble was with the individuals who were not doing well, or were troublemakers. For example, H. was about the poorest in her room in silent reading and kindred subjects. The test gave her the highest I. Q. except one, and the very highest mental age, in her room. As she was strong and healthy we concluded that she was just plain lazy, and told her so, with the result that she has much improved. S. was always quick to respond, interested, and working hard, but never seemed to get along well. His I. Q. was 71, which convinced us that he was beyond his depth and that we had overestimated him. Many other individuals may be mentioned but suffice it to say that we were much helped in getting at the real trouble in the case of pupils who were slow, troublesome, making no headway, etc. Of course we based our promotions considerably upon the information given us by the tests. Our ideal was to have each half-year class divided into three parts, the upper 20% to constitute one unit, the lower 20%, or the slow and backward ones, another group, and the normal children between these two. In but one case have we been able to carry out this plan, for we have had to combine the normal group with either the bright group or with the slow group. Even this grouping has been of much benefit to every teacher. |