A YEAR'S STUDY OF THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN BY GEORGE E. FREELAND A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Clark University, Worcester, Mass., in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy and accepted on the recommendation of William H. Burnham Reprinted from The Pedagogical Seminary June, 1921 Vol. XXVIII pp. 97-115 A YEAR'S STUDY OF THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN BY GEORGE E. FREELAND A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Clark University, Worcester, Mass., in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy and accepted on the recommendation of William H. Burnham Reprinted from The Pedagogical Seminary June, 1921 Vol. XXVIII pp. 97-115 Kov 3 fa?' I V^ \\ 'b^ A YEAR'S STUDY OF THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN By George E. Freeland Introductory Statement There is a definite need, at present, for long and careful experiments in child learning. The numerous problems raised by Thorndike, Freeman, Hall, and others demand attention before much progress can be made in methods of teaching, educational and psychological measurements, school admin- istration, and educational psychology. Eight years of study on these problems, during which time the available literature in English, German, and French was read, reveals the following situation : L All investigations of child learning have been of ex- tremely short duration. No one has followed a group of children scientifically studying their learning through an entire school year in any, subject. The psychology of child learning is at present based upon studies, few of which have gone beyond the initial stages. The total time of most of our widely quoted studies does not exceed two or three hours of practice. Kirby's study in arithmetic is a good illustration. Thorndike made frequent use of it in his Vol. II. The total time of learning did not exceed ninety minutes. 2. Most of the conclusions of scientists concerning learning in the elementary school are based upon investigations of the learning of adults. The majority of the studies mentioned by Freeman in " How Children Learn " were made upon adults. A typical conclusion from Thorndike's " Psychology of Learning " is given for further illustration. " The experi- mental results obtained justify in a rough -a'ciy the avoidance 98 THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN of very long practice periods and of very short intervals. They seem to show, on the other hand, that much longer prac- tice periods than are customary in the common schools are probably entirely allowable. . . . On the ivhole, how- ever, s'o very few of the infinite ivays in which any given total time can be distributed have been tested — . . . that psy- chology has little yet to offer in advance of the experience of sagacious workers." (Ed. Psy., v. ii, pp. 194 and 206.)^ It is interesting to note that he bases this very qualified con- clusion for common schools upon ten investigations, all but one of which were made upon adults, and the one made upon children (Kirby) shows exactly the opposite to his (Thorn- dike's) conclusion.^ Lack of space prevents further illustrations, but the above situation was the motive for making the study that is reported here. It is not entirely conclusive and is only one of a large number needed to furnish us with data from the actual work of children over a long period of time under typical school conditions. The Plan of this Study Typewriting was chosen for the following reasons : ( 1 ) It offers a medium in which the children had had no previous practice. (2) Several careful studies of adults have been made with typewriting. (3) It furnishes definite objective evidence in strokes, of amount accomplished, mistakes, and so on. These may be compared at any time after the practice is over. Six Children were selected upon the basis of normality. Their intelligence quotients showed a range of only five points in the Stanford Revision of the Binet Tests. The plan was to study a few normal children in a more careful way than would be possible with a large number. One child for each grade froin one to six made up the group. Each child practiced for ten minutes a day five days a iveek, but with the usual school intermissions. All the work was done in the forenoon between ten-thirty and twelve o'clock. One teacher who worked under the observation of the zvriter, taught all the children. The machine used was a Royal No. 10. The touch system with the keyboard entirely hidden from sight was adhered to. 1 Italics in this quotation are mine. They show the extent to which lack of data forced qualification. - These illustrations are not made to criticize Thorndike or Free- man. They have been first among those who deplore the lack of scientific studies of child learning. THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN 99 The investigation covers a full school year with the influ- ence of the summer vacation. One child is followed for a period of four years, in which time he relearned three times. What May be Concluded from Such a Study First, with six normal children as subjects the facts gained in this study should give a fairly clear picture of how the nor- mal child in each grade (up to the sixth) advances in type- zuriting when practicing ten minutes per school day. It should also show the influence of vacations, initial and later practice, and speed in connection with accuracy in the subject of type- writing. Second, since typewriting is a complex subject, similar to reading, until we have further data we may assume that the general facts true of children learning to typewrite are true of children learning to read ; that vacations, initial and later practice, and speed in connection with accuracy will have similar influence in all complex subjects. At present most of our educational psychology is based upon conclusions of the second type. A good illustration is found in Thorndike {Ed. Psy., Vol. 3, p. 14). Here he refers to the work of Miss Arai as continued effort in a " very difficult intellectual process." His discussion shows that he considered her experiences zvith arithmetic gave evidence of what others were likely to experience in any w,ental ivork (reading, think- ing, or memorizing). It must be admitted at the beginning that conclusions of the second type are, at best, always doubtful even though they are common and make up about nine tenths of our present educational psychology. They will be given for what they are worth in each section that follows. Conclusions of the first type, however, are mostly valid. If more children had been studied, the conclusions would be worth more. It should be added that this is tlic only published study of children learning to typewrite and has im)re learners than any of the famous adult studies of typewriting. Book had four learners. Swift one, and Hill and Rejall two. It also follozi's zvitli daily records one group of children over a longer continuous period than any other published study of child learning. This investigation has been made after a careful study of the work of others. It is assumed that the reader is acquainted with the literature ; the discussions and comparisons treat of points that, if their history were gone into, would require a volume. 100 THE DAILY LEARNING OF SIX CHILDREN Facts on the Amount Learned The amount learned is a factor entirely absent from all our studies of learning. When a child learns to read, his progress is from the ability to pronounce c-a-t to the ability to read a connected sentence to the ability to read a paragraph, to the ability to read a story, and so on.'' His speed and accuracy, if the facts in typewriting may be carried over to reading, probably increased very little after he reached the second stage, that is, learned to read a sentence. The need of studies of the amount learned is expressed by Thorndike as follows : " I should eagerly have seized upon any measurements of learning in arithmetic which measured the learner's advance from ' ability to add numbers to 9 plus 9 ' and so on. Nobody has ever had children learn geometry or painting or chemistry under defined conditions, testing from time to time the kind of thing they could at that time achieve." (Ed. Psy., V. 2.) The progress of two individuals from this standpoint is revealed in the data which follow. Records of the other chil- dren are on file at the University of Washington. Six-year-old hoy March 28, 1916. First lesson of year (10 min.) rt u r yu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyurtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyu rtyurtyu rtyu rtyu rtyurtyu rtyuu rtyu rtyu rtyu ruyu rtyu rtyu rtuu rtyu rtyu March 15, 1917. Last lesson of year Water won't quench fire, Fire won't burn stick. Stick won't beat dog, Dog won't bite pig, Pig won't get over the stile, And I can not get home to-night. The rope said, " I won't hang butcher." The old woman met a rat. ,^ , ,- i^,,^ March 17. 1916. Twelve-year-old hoy First lesson of year (10 min.) She said, 7^^^,.^ J^.cl