LIND, JOHN E. Diagnostic pitfalls in the mental examinations of negroes. (Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal, June 27, 1914.) MAYO, M. J. The mental capacity of the American negro. (Archives of Psychology, no. 28.) New York: Science Press, 1913. 70 pp. MORSE, JOSIAH. "A comparison of white and colored children measured by the Binet scale of intelligence," Popular Science Monthly, 84:75-79, January, 1914. Negro education. (Reprinted from United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1916, nos. 38-39.) PHILLIPS, B. A. "Retardation in the elementary schools of Philadelphia," Psychological Clinic, 6:79-90, May 15, 1912. PHILLIPS, B. A. "The Binet tests applied to colored children," Psychological Clinic, 8:190-96, December 15, 1914. PYLE, W. H. "The mind of the negro child," School and Society, 1:357-60, March 6, 1915. STETSON, G. R. "Some memory tests of whites and blacks," Psychological Review, 4:285-89, May, 1897. STRONG, A. C. "Three hundred fifty white and colored children measured by the Binet Simon measuring scale of intelligence," Pedagogical Seminary, 20:485–515, December, 1913. TERMAN, LEWIS M. The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916, 362 pp. WASHINGTON, BOOKER T. Working with the hands. New York: Doubleday Page and Company, 1904. 246 pp. OF HISTORY CHAS. L. HARLAN State Normal School, Lewiston, Idaho Those who advocate the use of educational tests and scales must look upon the product, outcome, or attainment being tested as reduced to its lowest terms. Spelling attainment is tested by discovering whether the letters of a given set of words are in the correct order. Handwriting consists of letter forms of a given slant, spacing, heaviness of line, and alignment. Composition consists of words, sentences and paragraphs, spelled, capitalized, punctuated and arranged so as to express ideas more or less clearly, grammatically, and impressively. A similar situation prevails when one analyzes the other subjects for testing purposes. The tests and scales which have been most useful to the teacher and supervisor in diagnosing educational situations have been tests of specific attainment, those which indicate definitely the particular phases of a given subject in which a pupil is succeeding or failing. If the teacher, after testing her pupils in language, arithmetic, or spelling is not better informed concerning the specific weaknesses and strengths of her pupils, if she has not learned what particular phases of language, what processes of arithmetic, or what words in the spelling work need more attention in her teaching, the work of testing has not been greatly profitable. To one seeking to devise standard tests in history, geography, literature and the other so-called "content" subjects, unusual difficulties are presented. The field of history with its many principles, facts, and details is almost unlimited in its extent. It is difficult to determine what the minimum essentials are. No teacher expects her pupils to assimilate and retain all the details of any history lesson. Yet there is little agreement as to what facts and principles a pupil should permanently acquire. There are some even who would claim that they do not teach history at all for the facts and principles which it contains but rather for the ideals and points of view which it may engender. Moreover, the content of history is being constantly and indefinitely increased by the addition of new material. It is difficult, for example, to foretell how much the accepted content of American history will be extended by the material dealing with the World War. Another difficulty is apparent to the maker of standard tests in the field of history, namely, the failure of writers and teachers of history to define in commonly accepted and definite terms what the outcomes of the study of history should be. Information concerning the great men, the important movements, the dominant institutions of the past is interesting and inspiring; and this fact seems to one group of history teachers to justify the presence of history in the course of study. That the subject furnishes an excellent means for developing ideals of patriotism, heroism, courage, and honesty is sufficient justification to another group of history teachers. A third group argues that a pupil by viewing in perspective the growth and development of our institutions > may thus secure a rational basis for his own actions as a citizen. These and other conflicting views as to why we teach history lead to indefiniteness and uncertainty as to the desirable outcomes of teaching, and consequently difficulty in determining the minimum essentials in this field. Bagley and Rugg1 have aided materially in defining the scope of the teaching of history. In most schools the textbook is the chief source of information in history. Certain names, places, events, dates, periods, movements, principles, and terms are presented in all the texts, while certain others occur with high degrees of frequency. These constitute a common basis in content which is at least presented to any reader of any of those commonly used texts. These common elements may therefore be considered as the minimum for testing purposes. Moreover, no matter what the aims of history teachers may be, one can be sure that this minimum of information has been given to the pupils. Successful achievement in any subject implies at least the > acquisition, by the pupil, of the essential knowledge in that subject. There may be many other outcomes from the study of history such as ideals, perspectives, points of view, and appreciations, but in the last analysis they are all dependent upon the > essential facts and body of information presented to the pupil.2 Therefore the incorporation of a part of this body of information is a prime requisite in the making of a standard history test. 1 Bagley, W. C. and Rugg, H. O. The content of American history as taught in the seventh and eighth grades. (University of Illinois Bulletin, v. 13, no. 51, August 21, 1916.) 2 Buckingham, B. R. "Proposed index of efficiency in teaching United States history," Journal of Educational Research, 1:161-71, March, 1920. L The multiplicity of aims in teaching history has led to a variety of methods of presentation. The earlier methods were c designed to appeal to memory. Later ones furnish problems for thought and reasoning. Others seek to have the pupil organize and judge of the values of the information presented. Still others seek nothing more than to have pupils appreciate the heroism, the courage, and the sacrifices of the makers of history. In order to meet this variety of methods and points of emphasis a history test should call for the exercises of a variety of mental functions and processes. Exercises which test memory alone are not sufficient. In addition to tests of memory there should be tests of association, organization, generalization, inference, judgment, comprehension of terms. This calls for variety in the types of exercises used in testing. Another condition to be met with in making a satisfactory history test is that of eliminating, in so far as possible, elements of other subjects such as reading, composition, and spelling. A test of achievement in any of the "content" subjects should, as much as possible, be independent of attainments in the other subjects. A history test which requires much silent reading before the exercises can be worked out is a test of achievement not only in history but also in silent reading. Likewise, a test which requires long, involved or elaborate answers is, in part at least, dependent upon the pupil's composition ability. A pupil may be only a mediocre silent reader and a very poor writer of compositions; yet he may be rather proficient in his reactions to history study. Such a pupil, if tested by a scale which is exacting in its requirements as to reading and composition, will not be able to show his proficiency in history. The completion type of test seems to meet these conditions best. Moreover, a history test should be so arranged and the directions and exercises should be so explicit that equivocal or ambiguous answers are not possible. No answer should call into exercise the judgment of the grader or scorer of the test. Such tests are also more easily and accurately graded with less expenditure of time and effort on the part of the teacher. It is even desirable that the exercises and scoring devices be such that pupils may score their own papers. A consideration of the difficulties and possibilities of testing in the field of history seems to indicate the following requirements of a good test: 1. It must cover a wide range of facts, those facts being ones which have been presented with emphasis. (Names, dates, places, periods, events, principles, terms, problems, causes, and results, etc.) 2. The test exercises must demand the use of a variety of mental functions and processes. (Memory, association, judgment, reasoning, organization, etc.) 3. It should in so far as possible be independent of attainment in other subjects; it should require little reading, composition, or spelling ability. 4. It should require unequivocal answers. 5. It should be easily given and easily scored. One such test which meets the above requirements has been devised and standardized by the writer. There are ten exercises each including from two to ten elements arranged in the order of their difficulty. The exercises vary in the types of responses called for and very little writing is required. A tabulation of the exercises follows: Men-Achievements. Five completion exercises. Terms-Examples. Ten exercises in understanding of terms. Places-Events. Five places; to name historic events. Problems-Solution. Two situations; state type with period. Events-Years. Five periods; associate men Five events; state year of Exercise I Exercise III Exercise IV Exercise v Exercise VI Exercise VII Example x state importance of each. Causes-Results. Five causes; state results. * Rugg, E. U. "Character and value of standard tests in history," School Review, 27:757-71, December, 1919. Occurrence. Dates-Events. Five dates; give significant |