"Feel sorry." "Be ashamed." "Pick it up," etc. Mere confession accounts for over 20 per cent of all failures.
_Question b (In danger of being tardy)_
_Satisfactory._ The expected response is, "Hurry," "Walk faster," or something to that effect. One bright city boy said he would take a car. Of the answers not obviously incorrect, nearly 95 per cent suggest hurrying. The rule ordinarily recommended is to grade all other responses _minus_. But this rule is too sweeping to be followed blindly. One who would use intelligence tests must learn to discriminate. "I would go back home and not go to school that day" is a good answer in those cases (fortunately rare) in which children are forbidden by the teacher to enter the schoolroom if tardy. "Go back home and get mother to write an excuse" would be good policy if by so doing the child might escape the danger of incurring an extreme penalty. When teachers inflict absurd penalties for unexcused tardiness, it is the part of wisdom for children to incur no risks! When such a response is given, it is well to inquire into the school"s method of dealing with tardiness and to score the response accordingly.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Go to the princ.i.p.al." "Tell the teacher I couldn"t help it." "Have to get an excuse." "Go to school anyway." "Get punished." "Not do it again." "Not play hooky."
"Start earlier next time," etc.
Lack of success results oftenest from failure to get the exact shade of meaning conveyed by the question. It is implied, of course, that something is to be done at once to avoid tardiness; but the subject of dull comprehension may suggest a suitable thing to do in case tardiness has been incurred. Hence the response, "I would go to the princ.i.p.al and explain." Answers of this type are always unsatisfactory.
_Question c (Playmate hits you)_
_Satisfactory responses_ are only those which suggest either excusing or overlooking the act. These ideas are variously expressed as follows: "I would excuse him" (about half of all the correct answers). "I would say "yes" if he asked my pardon."
"I would say it was all right." "I would take it for a joke." "I would just be nice to him." "I would go right on playing." "I would take it kind-hearted." "I would not fight or run and tell on him." "I would not blame him for it." "Ask him to be more careful," etc.
_Unsatisfactory responses_ are all those not of the above two types; as: "I would hit them back." "I would not hit them back, but I would get even some other way." "Tell them not to do it again." "Tell them to "cut it out."" "Tell him it"s a wrong thing to do." "Make him excuse himself." "Make him say he"s sorry." "Would not play with him." "Tell my mamma." "I would ask him why he did it." "He"d say "excuse me" and I"d say "thank you."" "He should excuse me." "He is supposed to say "excuse me.""
REMARKS. All three comprehension questions of this year were used by Binet, G.o.ddard, Huey, and others in year X; two of them in the "easy series" and one in the "hard series." The Stanford data show that they belong at the 8-year level on the standard of scoring above set forth.
The three differ little among themselves in difficulty, but all of them are decidedly easier than the other five used by Binet. It would be absurd to go on using the comprehension questions as Binet bunched them, eight together, ranging in difficulty from one which is easy enough for 6-year intelligence ("What"s the thing to do if you miss your train?") to one which is hard for the 12-year level ("Why is a bad act done when one is angry more excusable than the same act done when one is not angry?").
VIII, 4. GIVING SIMILARITIES; TWO THINGS
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to name two things which are alike in some way, and I want you to tell me how they are alike. Wood and coal: in what way are they alike?_" Proceed in the same manner with:--
_An apple and a peach._ _Iron and silver._ _A ship and an automobile._
After the first pair the formula may be abbreviated to "_In what way are ... and ... alike?_" It is often necessary to insist a little if the child is silent or says he does not know, but in doing this we must avoid supplementary questions and suggestions. In giving the first pair, for example, it would not be permissible to ask such additional questions as, "_What do you use wood for? What do you use coal for? And now, how are wood and coal alike?_" This is really putting the answer in the child"s mouth. It is only permissible to repeat the original question in a persuasive tone of voice, and perhaps to add: "_I"m sure you can tell me how ... and ... are alike_," or something to that effect.
A very common mistake which the child makes is to give differences instead of similarities. This tendency is particularly strong if test 5, year VII (giving differences), has been given earlier in the sitting, but it happens often enough in other cases also to suggest that finding differences is, to a much greater extent than finding similarities, the child"s preferred method of making a comparison. When a difference is given, instead of a similarity, we say: "_No, I want you to tell me how they are alike. In what way are ... and ... alike?_" Unless the child is of rather low intelligence level this is sufficient, but the mentally r.e.t.a.r.ded sometimes continue to give differences persistently in spite of repeated admonitions, or if they cease to do so for one or two comparisons, they are likely to repeat the mistake in the latter part of the test.
SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if a likeness is given in _two out of four_ comparisons. We accept as satisfactory any real likeness, whether fundamental or superficial, though, of course, the more essential the resemblance, the better indication it is of intelligence. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers:--[58]
[58] For aid in cla.s.sifying the responses in this and certain other tests the writer is indebted to Miss Grace Lyman.
(a) _Wood and coal_
_Satisfactory._ "Both burn." "Both keep you warm." "Both are used for fuel." "Both are vegetable matter." "Both come from the ground." "Can use them both for running engines." "Both hard."
"Both heavy." "Both cost money."
Of 80 correct answers, 64, or 80 per cent, referred in one way or another to combustibility.
_Unsatisfactory._ Most frequent is the persistent giving of a difference instead of a similarity. This accounts for a little over half of all the failures. About half of the remainder are cases of inability to give any response. Incorrect statements with regard to color are rather common. Sample failures of this type are: "Both are black," or "Both the same color." Other failures are: "Both are dirty on the outside;" "You can"t break them;" "Coal burns better;" "Wood is lighter than coal," etc.
(b) _An apple and a peach_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are round." "Both the same shape." "They are about the same color." "Both nearly always have some red on them." "Both good to eat." "Can make pies of both of them."
"Both can be cooked." "Both mellow when they are ripe." "Both have a stem" (or seeds, skin, etc.). "Both come from trees."
"Can be dried in the same way." "Both are fruits." "Both green (in color) when they are not ripe."
Of 82 correct answers, 25 per cent mention color; 25 per cent, form; 22 per cent, edibility; 20 per cent, having stem, seed, or skin; and 5 per cent, that both grow on trees.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both taste the same." "Both have a lot of seeds." "Both have a fuzzy skin." "An apple is bigger than a peach." "One is red and one is white," etc.
Again, over 50 per cent of the failures are due to giving differences and about 18 per cent to silence.
(c) _Iron and silver_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are metals" (or mineral). "Both come out of the ground." "Both cost money." "Both are heavy." "Both are hard." "Both can be melted." "Both can be bent." "Both used for utensils." "You manufacture things out of both of them." "Both can be polished."
These are named most frequently in the following order: (1) hardness, (2) origin from the ground, (3) heaviness, (4) use in making things.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both thin" (or thick). "Sometimes they are the same shape." "Both the same color." "A little silver and lots of iron weigh the same." "Both made by the same company."
"They rust the same." "You can"t eat them" (!)[59]
[59] One is here reminded of the puzzling conundrum, "Why is a brick like an elephant?" The answer being, "Because neither can climb a tree!" A response of this type states a fact, but because of its bizarre nature should hardly be counted satisfactory.
Of 60 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to silence or unwillingness to hazard a reply.
(d) _A ship and an automobile_
_Satisfactory._ "Both means of travel." "Both go." "You ride in them." "Both take you fast." "They both use fuel." "Both run by machinery." "Both have a steering gear." "Both have engines in them." "Both have wood in them." "Both can be wrecked." "Both break if they hit a rock."
About 45 per cent of the answers are in terms of running or travel, 37 per cent in terms of machinery or structure, the rest scattered.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both black" (or some other color). "Both very big." "They are made alike." "Both run on wheels." "Ship is for the water and automobile for the land." "Ship goes on water and an automobile sometimes goes in water." "An auto can go faster."
"Ship is run by coal and automobile by gasoline."
Of 51 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to failure to reply.
REMARKS. The test of finding similarities was first used by Binet in 1905. Our results show that it is fully as satisfactory as the test of giving differences. The test reveals in a most interesting way one of the fundamental weaknesses of the feeble mind. Young normal children, say of 7 or 8 years, often fail to pa.s.s, but it is the feeble-minded who give the greatest number of absurd answers and who also find greatest difficulty in resisting the tendency to give differences.[60]
[60] For further discussion of the processes involved, see VII, 5.
VIII, 5. GIVING DEFINITIONS SUPERIOR TO USE
PROCEDURE. The words for this year are _balloon_, _tiger_, _football_, and _soldier_. Ask simply: "_What is a balloon?_" etc.
If it appears that any of the words are not familiar to the child, subst.i.tution may be made from the following: _automobile_, _battle-ship_, _potato_, _store_.
Make no comments on the responses until all the words have been given.
In case of silence or hesitation in answering, the question may be repeated with a little encouragement; but supplementary questions are never in order. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in securing a response to the definition test of this year. The trouble comes in scoring the response.
SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if two of the four words are defined in terms superior to use. "Superior to use" includes chiefly: (a) Definitions which describe the object or tell something of its nature (form, size, color, appearance, etc.); (b) definitions which give the substance or the materials or parts composing it; and (c) those which tell what cla.s.s the object belongs to or what relation it bears to other cla.s.ses of objects.
It is possible to distinguish different grades of definitions in each of the above cla.s.ses. A definition by description (type _a_) may be brief and partial, mentioning only one or two qualities or characteristics, or it may be relatively rich and complete. Likewise with definitions of type _b_. Cla.s.sificatory definitions (type _c_) are of particularly uneven value, the lowest order being those which subsume the object to be defined under a remote cla.s.s and give few if any characteristics to distinguish it from other members of the same cla.s.s; as, for example, "A football is a thing you can have fun with," or, "A soldier is a person."
The best cla.s.sificatory definitions are those which subsume the object under the next higher cla.s.s and give the more essential traits (perhaps a number of them) which distinguish the object from others of the cla.s.s named; as, for example, "A tiger is a large animal like a cat; it lives in the jungle and eats men and other animals," or, "A soldier is a man who goes to war." These shades of distinction give interesting and valuable clues to the maturity and richness of the apperceptive processes, but for purposes of scoring it is necessary merely to decide whether the definition is given in terms superior to use.