The use of intelligence tests as a basis of school organization and instruction

Front matter

Issued Weekly Vol. XX December 25, 1922 No. 17

[Entered as second-class matter December 11, 1912, at the post office at Urbana, Illinois, under the Act of August 24, 1912. Accepted for mailing at the special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized July 31, 1918.]

BULLETIN NO. 12

Table Of Contents

PAGE

Preface 5

I. The Plan and Conduct of the Experiment 7

Preface

How to use most effectively the information yielded by general intelligence tests is one of the most important questions before the educational world at the present time. Many of our leading educational thinkers are urging that the children in our elementary schools be grouped into grades on the basis of their mental ages and divided into sections within the grade on the basis of intelligence quotients. Other educators maintain that this should not be done. In this monograph Dr. C. W. Odell presents the results of an investigation extending over nearly two years in which he has studied with unusual care certain of the questions involved in the proposal that we reorganize our schools on the basis of the results yielded by general intelligence tests. Because the questions studied are highly important it is felt that a somewhat detailed report is justified. In order to assist the reader in understanding the experiment the organization of the experimental schools has been described in detail.

This investigation was undertaken at the invitation of Superintendent Peter A. Mortenson of Chicago. Its execution was made possible by the cooperation of Assistant Superintendent A. B. Wight and of certain principals and teachers in the Chicago public schools. To all who have cooperated in the course of the investigation the Bureau of Educational Research desires to acknowledge its indebtedness.

Walter S. Monroe, Director.

November 10, 1922.

THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A BASIS OF SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND INSTRUCTION

Chapter I The Plan And Conduct Of The Experiment

The Problem. The experiment described in this bulletin was carried on in eight elementary schools in the city of Chicago. It was an attempt to answer the following question: What is the effect upon the efficiency of elementary schools of promoting and classifying pupils chiefly upon their mental ages and intelligence quotients as determined by group intelligence tests rather than according to the traditional method? It is recognized that this is really a double problem involving the question of a flexible system of promotion and classification upon any basis as compared with a non-flexible system, and also the question of using the results of group intelligence tests rather than some other basis for promotion and classification. The justification for combining these two questions is that the use of the results from group intelligence tests for the purposes mentioned above necessarily involves a flexible system and hence the two questions may be considered as one from the standpoint of practical school administration.

Definition of terms used in statement of problem. The "efficiency" of a school is the ratio of its output to the investment, or investment . Thc output or retum upon the investment is measured in terms of the achievements of the pupils and their rates of progress through the school system. The investment, as the term is used above, includes not only what might strictly be called investment but also the factors which affect the manner in which the investment proper is used. The "promoting" of pupils refers to their advancement from one half-grade to another. The "classifying" of pupils refers to their placement in the fast, average and slow sections into which each half-grade in the experimental schools was divided. The word "chiefly" is used in the statement of the problem because the information derived from group intelligence tests was supplemented by other data. The "traditional method" refers to the method of placement used in the group of control schools. According to this method, promotion is determined by the pupil's final mark, which is usually a composite of the mark that he receives upon the final examination and that given by the teacher for his work during the term. In some cases the promotion indicated by the pupil's final mark is modified by the principal's opinion of his work or ability or by such considerations as chronological age, length of time already spent in the grade, number of pupils in the room, etc. This is the method which has been and still is the prevailing practice in the elementary schools of this country.

Scope of study. This study was confined to elementary schools having sixteen^ or more teachers, which were organized in sixteen half-grades and in which pupils were promoted semi-annually. These schools were divided into an experimental and a control group of four each by Assistant Superintendent A. B. Wight. In making this selection, Mr, Wight endeavored to choose two groups of schools^ in which the investment factors should be approximately equal at the beginning of the experiment,^ Except in the plan of organization of the experimental schools, nothing was done to cause any change.

This investigation was rather strictly Hmited to the study of the effect upon the "efficiency" of certain elementary schools of promoting and classifying pupils chiefly according to the data derived from the use of group tests of intelligence. There was no consideration of the desirability of discovering and segregating for instructional purposes pupils of varying degrees of ability, except from the standpoint of their rates of progress and achievements in school. Neither was there any assumption that the plan used, which provided that pupils of different degrees of ability should complete the same course of study at different rates of progress,

^In one of the control schools there were only fourteen teachers in charge of pupils who actually participated in the project.

"The experimental schools were the Armour, Franklin, Holden and Moseiey. In the control group were the Alcott, Greene, Mark Sheridan and Webster.

'A more complete comparison of the investment factors in the two groups of schools may be found in the dissertation of the same title and by the same writer as this bulletin. This dissertation is on file in the library of the University of Illinois.

was superior to a plan providing that the different groups of pupils should cover different courses of study.

In this experiment the measurement of the achievements of the pupils was, with certain minor exceptions, limited to arithmetic and reading. As these are two of the most fundamental subjects studied in the elementary school, they were considered a fairly good measure of total achievement.

The general plan of the experiment. The experiment began in the autumn of 1920 and continued until the summer of 1922. As Table I shows, both intelligence and subject-matter tests were administered to the pupils of both groups of schools once each semester except that at the last testing only subject-matter tests were used. Also certain other data that seemed pertinent to the investigation were collected at each time of testing. After the first testing period the pupils of the experimental schools were promoted and classified upon the basis of the test results and the other data which had been obtained. After each of the later testing periods such adjustments were made as seemed advisable. No direct use was made of the test results or other data in the control schools. There was some opportunity for the teachers of this group of schools to make a more or less indirect use of the test results but they did not do so to a degree sufficient to affect the results of the experiment. By thus measuring the abilities and achievements of the pupils of the two groups of schools near the beginning and end of each semester the resulting data afforded a basis for comparing the effect of promoting and classifying pupils chiefly upon the results obtained from the use of group tests of intelligence with that of promoting pupils according to the traditional method.

The first tests were given in November, 1920, and the results used in promoting and classifying the pupils for the second semester of 1920-21. The next testing occurred in May, 1921, and furnished the basis for the placement of the pupils for the following September. All new entrants were tested in September and assigned to their grades and sections as soon thereafter as possible. A general testing occurred again in December and was followed by the placement of the pupils for the second semester of 1921-22. The final testing was in May, 1922. In addition to these general testing periods, small groups of absentees and new entrants were tested from time to time as seemed best.

The tests were in all cases given by the regular teachers who had been prepared for this work by a careful program of meetings with discussion. The teachers were also given very detailed directions. Rather extensive visiting by the writer while the tests were being administered showed that this program of preparation secured fairly uniform and correct procedure. Part of the scoring of the tests was done by the teachers and part by clerks in Assistant Superintendent Wight's office. The scoring was also checked sufficiently by the writer to warrant the beUef that it was fairly accurate. Most of the errors which were found were so small that they had no effect upon the placement of pupils. In the tabulation of test and other data the positive and negative errors balanced each other so as to leave no sensible Inaccuracy in the medians and other measures computed.

The data collected. Table I shows the intelligence and achievement tests used at each date of testing. The scores made upon these tests were translated into mental* or achievement'' ages, as the case might be, and then further into intelligence^ and achievement^ quotients. The mental ages and intelligence quotients used

"^"^^Mental age is a term used to express the amount of intelligence possessed by an individual. The average score made upon an intelligence test by a large number of unselected children of any one given chronological age is said to be equal to a mental age of the given number of years. Thus, if on a given test the average score of sixyear-olds is 25 points and that of .seven-year-olds is 30 points, a score of 25 points may be transmuted into a mental age of six years and one of 30 points into one of seven years. It is abbreviated M.A.

^ ' ^Achievement age is used to express the amount achieved by an individual on a subject-matter test. The average score made by the children of a single mental age is taken to equal an achievement age of the same number of years. Thus, if the average score of children of the mental age of ten years is 56 points, that score may be "■eiianged into an achievement age — abbreviated A.A. — of ten years.

^The intelligence quotient is the ratio of the mental age to the chronological age, or M.A. divided by C.A. It is conventionally carried to two places and written without the decimal point. Thus a child who has a mental age of ten years and is eight years old has an intelligence quotient of 10 divided by 8, or 125. It is abbreviated I.Q.

^The achievement quotient — abbreviated A.Q. — is the ratio of the achievement age to the mental age, or A.A. divided by M.A. It is written similarly to the I.Q. Thus a child whose achievement age is nine years and whose mental age is ten years has an achievement quotient of 9 divided by 10, or 90.

TABLE I. THE INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS USED IN THIS EXPERIMENT

Date

of

Testing

Grades

Intelligence Tests

Grades

Achievement Tests

IB-IIIB

Indiana University Primer Scale (Pressey Primer)

lA

Indiana University First Grade Reading Vocabulary Test, Form A

IB-IIIB

Dearborn Group Tests of Intelligence

IIB-IIIB

Indiana University Scale of Attainment No. 1, Form A

IIIA-VIIIA

National Intelligence Tests, Scale A, Form I

IIIA-VIB VIA-VIIIA

Monroe's Standardized Silent Reading Tests Form I, Test 1 Form I, Test 2

IIIA-VIIIA

Illinois General Intelligence Scale, Form I

IIIA-VIB VIA-VIIIA

Monroe's General Survey Scale in Arithmetic Form I, Scale 1 Form I, Scale 2

IB-IIIB IIIA-VIIIA

Indiana University Primer Scale

Illinois General Intelligence Scale, Form II

The same tests were used as in November, 1920, except that Form B of the two Indiana Tests and Form II of the Monroe Tests were used.

IB

lA-IIIB IIIA-VIIIA

Kingsbury Primary Group Intelligence Scale, Form A

IndianaUniversityPrimerScale

Illinois General Intelligence Scale, Form II

The same tests were used as in May, 1921

Dec.

IB-IIIB IIIA-VIIIA

Myers Mental Measure

Illinois General Intelligence Scale, Form I

The same tests were used as in November, 1920, except that Form III of the Monroe Tests was used.

None used.

VIB-VIIIA

The same tests were used as in November, 1920, except that Form B of the Indiana Vocabulary Test and Revised Form A of the Scale of Attainment No. 1 were used.

Omnibus Test*

♦See Appendix C

at the first time of testing were based upon the average of the two mental tests given at that time.

The other items of information called for by the individual record cards used in this project were as follows: name, building, date of birth, sex, date of testing, school grade, chronological age, teacher's estimate, average school mark, attendance, and health mark.

The teacher's estimate was an opinion as to the general capacity of the pupil regardless of whether this capacity was actually displayed in regular school work or not. This estimate was expressed in terms of the following five marks and the teachers were instructed to make their distributions accord fairly closely with that given below:

S or S=superior — 5 to 10 percent E or 4==excellent — 20 percent G or 3^good — 40 to SO percent F or 2=fair — 20 percent P or l=poor — 5 to 10 percent The average school mark was the average of the pupil's marks upon the seven most important subjects of the course of study. It was based upon the grades on the monthly reports issued during the current semester previous to the date of testing and was expressed in terms of the same five marks that were used for the teachers' estimates.

Attendance was given as the percent of school days from the beginning of the semester to the date of testing during which the pupil was present. The health mark was the teacher's opinion of the general health of the pupil and was expressed in terms of the same five marks that were used for teachers' estimates and average school marks.

At the time of the first testing, the published norms and data for the transmutation of point scores upon the tests used into mental and achievement ages were in most cases based on a number of pupils not much larger, or even actually smaller, than the number taking the tests in this experiment. Hence it was decided that in the case of most of the tests used, the norms and tables for transmutation should be based upon the data obtained in this project.® The exceptions to this decision were the Illinois Examination, including the Illinois General Intelligence Scale and Monroe's Arithmetic and Reading Tests, and the Myers Mental Measure. These exceptions were made because in the case of the Illinois Examination scores from about fifty thousand pupils were available,^ and in that of the Myers Mental Measure scores from about fifteen thousand pupils.^"

^See complete dissertation for these transmutation tables and their derivation.

^Monroe, W. S. A Report of the Use of the Illinois Examination, Form 1, with 49,500 Pupils. Insert of School and Home Education, March, 1921. 8p.

"Myers, C. E. and G. C. Measuring Minds. New York; Newson, 1921, p. 23-4.

Principles of promotion and classification used at the first placement of the pupils. It was necessary to lay down certain principles which should be followed in the placement of the pupils, with the understanding that there would be need for exceptions in the cases of certain individuals. The inadvisability of following set rules too closely was due to several facts. Such procedure would result in entirely too great a change in the placement of some pupils. Moreover, the data secured from the tests and from other sources could not be relied upon as being absolutely accurate, and in some cases were so conflicting that disagreements between any detailed principles laid down were sure to occur. In view of these facts it must be understood that the principles enumerated below were not adhered to absolutely and that there were exceptions of many sorts that it is impracticable to list. The principles formulated for the first placement of pupils, which was for February, 1921, are given below.

I. The use of the data derived from the intelligence tests.

1. The chief bases of placement were the mental ages and intelligence quotients. The mental ages were used to determine the half-grades in which the pupils should be placed, and the Intelligence quotients to determine the sections, subject to such modifications as may be given in II.

2. In general, the mental age norm for each half-grade was the median mental age of this half-grade group for the experimental schools. If the median mental age of a particular half-grade group In any one school was distinctly above or below the median of the four schools, a rough average of the two medians was used. This was done because it was considered desirable to make some progress toward reducing the range of ability within a given half-grade group for the experimental schools, but not to do so without regard to the ability actually found In the half-grades of the several schools as they were at the beginning of the experiment. Rather wide mental age limits were used for each half-grade group, with the expectation that as the experiment progressed they would be narrowed.

3. In general, demotion was recommended only when a pupil's mental age was at least two years below the median of the grade in which he was found, and extra promotion only when it was at least several months higher than the median of the grade in which extra promotion would place him. In no case was a pupil recommended for skipping more than two semesters' work nor for being demoted more than one.

4. Pupils whose intelligence quotients were above 110 were usually placed in the fast sections, those with I. Q.'s below 85 in the slow sections and the remainder^^ regularly composed the average sections. However, in many cases pupils' mental ages were several months above the

■ medians of the half-grades in which normal promotion would place them, while their I. Q.'s were below 85. In such cases they were usually given normal promotion to the average section of the next half-grade. Similar exceptions were made in connection with other ranges of mental ages and intelligence quotients.

5. In some cases where the mental ages and intelligence quotients were rather low, it appeared probable that the pupils had either misunderstood directions upon one of the two intelligence tests or, had not, through some other cause, done themselves justice upon one of them. In such cases their scores on the other test were given more than half weight in determining their placement.

II. Th^ use of the other data obtained.

1. Most of the other items recorded upon the individual record cards were given consideration. Low teachers' estimates and average school marks rarely prevented promotion in cases where the mental ages seemed to warrant it. In doubtful cases the question of whether

"Inasmuch as the intelligence quotients obtained in this project were derived from group intelligence tests they had a somewhat greater spread than those derived from individual tests. Therefore the percent of pupils with I.Q.'s from 85 to 110 was somewhat less than that usually found between 90 and 110 when individual tests are used.

a single or a double promotion should be given was, however, frequently decided by the teachers' estimates and average school marks.

2. On the other hand, even though their mental ages were low enough to merit demotion, very few pupils were failed whose teachers' estimates and average school marks were "good" or better, and not very many were failed if either one of the two was this high.

3. In making use of the teachers' estimates of capacity and the average school marks it was found that those of some teachers ran much higher than those of others in cases where the mental and achievement ages of the two groups of pupils showed little difference. That is, a teacher's estimate or school mark of "fair," for instance, given by one teacher might be fully equal to one of "good" given by another. In making use of these two items an allowance was made for this fact.

4. In cases of marked disagreement between the evidence afforded by the test data and that given by the teachers' estimates and school marks, the achievement test scores were frequently the deciding factor in placement.

5. In doubtful cases the teachers' estimates of health sometimes determined placement, but were not a major factor.

III. Pupils not classified.

1. Since all promoted VIIIB and VIII A pupils would leave the schools concerned before the close of the experiment, no recommendations were made in the case of any pupils of these grades.

2. Pupils in open-air and ungraded rooms were recommended for promotion and classification according to the same principles used for the other pupils, but it was not expected that they would actually be placed in exact agreement with the recommendations.

An illustration of the application of these principles of promotion and classification. In order to illustrate the actual application of these principles, the following sample taken from the

TABLE II. SAMPLE OF THE PROMOTION LISTS MADE OUT FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 1920-21

Pupil Number

M.A.

I.Q.

A.A.

School Mark

Health

Mark

Placement of Pupil

6.6

8-8

1.8

IIIA slow

7.7

7-10

1.7

IVB slow

11.3

10-8

3.8

VB average

8.0

9-6

2.7

IVB fast

11.3

11-10

3.0

VB average

9.1

9-8

3.5

9.2

8-8

3.1

10.2

9-8

3.0

10.6

11-10

3.0

IVA slow

8.8

10-0

2.0

IV B slow

4.7

7-4

1.0

IIIA slow

10.0

8-10

2.0

IVA slow

12.3

11-6

3.0

VB fast

10.4

11-2

3.0

10.4

8-0

2.8

IVA slow

8.7

9-0

2.7

10.2

13-0

3.0

VB average

9.2

8-6

3.2

8.6

8-4

1.5

IVB slow

11.2

11-10

4.0

VB average

♦Teacher's Estimate.

lists actually made out is given and discussed. These lists were later submitted to the principals and teachers, as has been mentioned previously, and any changes that seemed best were made.

Since the sample in Table II is a portion of the list for the pupils who were in the IVB grade during the first semester of 1920-21, the median mental and achievement ages^^ for the half-grade groups into which IVB pupils were likely to be placed are given below.

IVB IVA VB

9.6 9.8 10.8

9-1 9-2 10-6

The mental ages of Nos. 1 and 11 were so low that it was evident they should be demoted. This was corroborated by the low teachers' estimates and average school marks given them. Their I. Q.'s clearly indicated that they belonged in the slow section. Nos. 2, 10 and 19 had mental ages considerably below the IVB median and I. Q.'s of 85 or below. As their teachers' estimates and school marks were also fairly low they were kept in their grade

Grade Mental Age Achievement Age

IIIA

8.1

7-4

"See Table III.

and placed in the slow section. No. 12 had a mental age above the IVB median, but an I. Q. of only 72, so he was recommended for the IVA slow section. Although No. 4's mental age and I. Q. were low enough to indicate that he belonged in the IVB slow section his fairly good achievement age and his school mark of 2.7 resulted in his being placed in the fast section of that grade. This was done to prevent him from having to repeat work during the whole of the next semester and with the expectation that he would soon drop back into an average or slow section. The mental ages of Nos. 9 and 15 seemed to entitle them to extra promotion but as their teachers' estimates and school marks were only about average they received merely normal promotion into the IVA grade. Because of their low I. Q.'s they were placed in the slow section. In the case of the six pupils placed in the average section of IVA there was little doubt as to where they belonged except that No. 16 had a mental age almost a year below the IVA median. His rather high I. Q. and average school mark led to the decision not to prevent his advancement. Nos. 8 and 14 might have been considered for extra promotion had their teachers' estimates and school marks been higher. Nos. 3 and 20 were clearly entitled to extra promotion on the basis of all the data and No. 5 was only slightly less deserving. The I.Q. of the first would have caused his placement in the fast section but it happened there were riot enough pupils in the school of similar ability to justify the formation of a fast section in grade VB. Therefore all three were placed in the average section of that grade. No. 17 was also given extra promotion. In his case a chronological age of almost 16 years and a high score on the achievement tests were potent clauses. For the same reason he was placed in the average rather than the slow section, although his I. Q. was only 69. No. 13 would probably have been given two semesters of extra promotion instead of one except for the fact that his teacher's estimate and school mark were only 3. As it was he was given one extra promotion and placed in the fast section of the grade.

Supplementary principles of promotion and classification used at the second and third periods of placement of the pupils. At the second and third periods of placement — that is, for September, 1921, and February, 1922, — a majority of the pupils placed at the beginning of the second semester of 1920-21 received normal promotion into the next half-grade and remained in the corresponding section. Unless the new data clearly indicated that the pupil had been placed improperly in February, 1921, this course was followed. Certain additional principles were adopted to care for those pupils who seemed to have been improperly placed. These principles were as follows:

1. In the cases of a number of the pupils given extra promotion at the beginning of the previous semester, their school marks and achievement ages following this promotion did not appear to justify It. If, however, their mental ages as shown by the later testing were high enough to justify their retaining the extra promotion given and also receiving normal promotion at the later date, such promotion was usually given. This was done on the assumption that after skipping the work of one or more semesters It might require more than one semester for them to "find themselves."

2. Pupils previously promoted or placed In fast sections despite their low school marks were failed If their school marks still continued to be unsatisfactory.^^

3. Many pupils who had received only a part of the extra promotion that they seemed to deserve in February, 1921,^* were given further extra promotion, If their later scores justified so doing.

4. In cases where the test scores of pupils varied greatly from those made at the previous testing period or periods, and the other evidence did not agree with one score more than the other, the scores were roughly averaged to provide the basis for placement.

The final placement of the pupils. The writer made out his recommendations for placement, basing them upon the principles listed above, some two or three weeks before the end of the semester. The lists were then submitted to the principals and teachers concerned for their consideration, and finally put into

"Most of these seemed to be cases of laziness and lack of study. "These pupils had received only a part of their extra promotion in order to lessen the amount of work skipped at one time and thus make their advance easier.

effect. In two of the four schools the recommendations were discussed individually, but in the other two this was not done, as the principals of those schools wished to make as complete a change as possible from the traditional method of procedure. The changes made as a result of this consideration amounted to about one percent of the total number of recommendations made. These changes were often due to the fact that a longer acquaintance with certain pupils caused the teachers to wish to revise the estimates of capacity or school marks which had been reported some time previously. Sometimes, however, the changes made represented a yielding on the part of the writer of his judgment, based largely upon the test results, to that of the principal or teacher, which was based upon the actual school work of the pupils and upon personal contact with them. In a few cases a change was made in order to place the pupil under a certain teacher so that he would be separated from a group of classmates.

In planning this whole experiment and in formulating and using the principles of promotion and classification those in charge of the experiment were guided by the desire to do a practicable piece of work. That is to say, they wished to use a procedure which the average school administrator or supervisor would be willing and able to make use of in his own school. It was partly because of this desire that more thoroughgoing changes were not made in the placement of the pupils, especially after the first period of testing. It is true that some public school superintendents have carried out considerably more radical plans of reclassification than the one used in this experiment but it was believed that a plan that might be followed by a more conservative educator would be more worth while.