Second group. Referring to the usual argument favoring the whole method it should be pointed out that even with the part method a chapter or an entire selection is usually developed in logical order so that an adequate comprehension of the whole is established before the part learning begins.

To discover the influence of method upon comprehension, four sections in psychology, 169 students read Chapters VIII, IX and X of Freeman's How Children Learn by either part or whole method. In the part method each paragraph was read twice. Students following the whole method read the entire chapter twice in succession. Students changed methods in Chapter IX and again in Chapter X. The Army Alpha tests were given to check the influence of method against ability. Comprehension was measured by an essay examination on each chapter, the papers being graded on a percentile basis. Each student kept an exact record as to time spent in reading.

Results showed the two methods practically equal, except that the advantage of either method depends upon the individual student. It may be that the slight superiority shown for the part method is due to some inherent advantage which that method has in the learning process of the individual.

The third group of experiments was made upon seven sections in experimental psychology containing 226 students. These students had been trained in psychological experimentation and to follow directions exactly. The material consisted of 12 stanzas of poetry divided into sections of four stanzas each. Each class was divided into pairs one of each pair to act as experimenter and the other as subject.

Results again seemed to show the advantage of a particular method for the individual learner, the whole method being longest in learning.

12. Part versus Whole Method

[PECHSTEIN, L. A., "Whole Versus Part Methods in Learning Nonsensical Syllables," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1916, Vol. 9, pp. 381-387, Baltimore, Warwick and York.] (Partly adapted.) At the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in 1916, L. A. Pechstein read a paper on the alleged

elements of waste in learning a motor problem by the "part" method. It was shown that learning a maze was a type of motor problem that affords splendid opportunity for testing and comparing the whole and part methods, because its general nature can be easily mastered. Without describing his technique, it can be pointed out briefly that it was found that both rats and humans master the problem by the progressive part method with scores far superior not only to those secured by the pure part method but especially to those made by the whole method. Also, he found that the superiority was recorded by three types of measuring criteria-time, trials and total errors. Pechstein believes that there are certain inherent elements of strength to part method learning, and that these inherent advantages, taken in conjunction with the progressive and distributive handling of the positional factors, explain the superiority of the modified part methods over the whole methods as applied to the field of motor-learning.

In a later paper before the American Psychological Association (1917), Pechstein directed attention to learning non-sense syllables by numerous whole and part learning methods. Again, he questions the superiority of the whole method.

The experimentation employed two series of non-sensical syllables. The A-Series consisted of thirty-two syllables in consecutive arrangement. The B-Series consisted of the same syllables, but arranged in sixteen pairs, as 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, etc. The series were mounted on a mechanically-driven drum and were exposed singly or in pairs through an adjustable aperture. The A-Series required an exposure of two seconds per syllable, the B-Series four seconds for each pair. The A-Series was considered learned when the subject could successfully anticipate and write each syllable when shown the immediately preceding one. The B-Series was considered learned when the subject could write the second syllable of each pair when the first syllables were shown as stimuli. These stimulus words were arranged in different order from their position in the original paired learning series. Each subject was given a learning trial and test for measuring the amount learned immediately after each such trial, two seconds being allowed to anticipate each subsequent syllable in Series A or to recall the paired associate in Series B. . . .

The whole methods are two in number: the Whole Method "Returns Allowed," types A and B, and the Whole Method "Returns Prevented." The part methods are four in number:

"the pure part," the "progressive part," the "direct repetitive," and the "reversed repetitive. . . .

A comparative study of the data secured reveals three important conclusions. (1) So far as the whole and part methods are concerned, all the part methods prove superior to the whole methods, both for maze learning and for the highly comparable A-Series of non-sensical syllables, this superiority being demonstrated throughout by all the three criteria of learning, namely -trials, errors and time. Also, only the wasteful repetitive methods are inferior to the whole method when the B-Series is concerned, and this inferiority is only shown in the unavoidable requirements of trials and time, not in regard to errors. It suggests that less reviewing would have secured all the advantages of these repetitive methods and produced results uniformly superior to those of the whole methods. (2) One of the part methods, namely, the "progressive part," wherein each new section is learned as a unit and added at once to the earlier learned materials, is constantly most efficient throughout all the various learning tests. In maze learning, it is superior to its nearest competitor both in time and in errors; in both the A-Series and B-Series, it is overwhelmingly superior in all three respects-trials, errors and time. (3) Motor learning and learning verbatim obey, in the main, the same laws of learning... the same part method is consistently the best in each field.

13. Whole versus Part Method

[WINCH, W. H., "Should Poems Be Learnt by School Children as 'Wholes' or 'Parts,'" British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 15, July, 1924, pp. 64-79.] (Summarized conclusions from the second experiment described in the article.)

1. Again, with the four shorter poems of the final tests, the "part" method of learning has proved the better.

2. With the long, continuous poem of Dora, the balance of advantage is transferred to the group working by the "whole" method: this is statistically invalid, but there seems to be evidence that some unusual factor in the nature of the poem itself, possibly its much greater length, or its continuity in style and meaning, or perhaps its coherence as a story and its absence of rhyme, or combinations of these factors, has rendered the "part" method much less profitable than usual.

3. With the long, relatively disjointed and rhymed poem of The Seagull, the "part" method has gained a victory, which

becomes more certain after an interval of three weeks with no anticipation on the part of the boys that they would ever be required to write the poem out again. Even in these conditions, the greater part of The Seagull has actually been remembered, and after three weeks' interval the boys learning by the "part" method have retained a higher percentage of their original knowledge than those who worked by the "whole" method.

14. Forms of Remembering

[JUDD, C. H., Psychology of High School Subjects, pp. 70-72. Boston, Ginn & Co., 1915.]

We have of late come to regard memory work in the schools as something unworthy of recognition in comparison with reasoning and the higher thought-processes. No one who gives the matter any serious thought can, however, fail to recognize the fact that the criticism of memory is not based on any real expectation on the part of teachers that students will be able to carry on the higher processes without an appeal to memory. Criticisms of memory are directed not against memory, but against bad forms of remembering. Again and again the members of the class were required to go back into their memories and select the theorems necessary for progress in the demonstration in hand. Sometimes they offered an irrelevant theorem. This showed lack of discrimination in selection, or it showed poverty in the stock of ideas from which the selection could be made. When we speak of working out a demonstration, it is evident that the material stored in memory must be in form to permit selection and rapid review for the purpose of facilitating selective thought. One general principle of memory which immediately suggests itself in terms of the instructor's questions is the principle of arrangement. What do you know about equilateral triangles? What do you know about lines that are perpendicular to parallel lines? These are examples of questions which were asked with a view to helping students to classify knowledge. Furthermore, the classification must evidently not be too rigid, else the proposition which is needed now to illuminate the discussion from the point of view of the size of angles will not be available later when the same fundamental fact is needed in connection with the discussion of areas. Memory must therefore contain items classified in a variety of ways. When the student goes back into his store of experiences, he must find there many propositions ready for use in many dif

ferent connections. To such a flexible memory there can be no objection. To a well-ordered body of knowledge, especially if it is well ordered in many different directions, there can be no objection. From these statements of what is demanded of memory we begin to see how memory should be trained. If one wishes to have his students flexible and ready in ideas, then he must give them that type of memory training which will make them both ready and flexible. The problem of modern teaching is not to discard memory, but rather to train the powers of retention and recall in a better way than formerly. To object to memory is very shortsighted; to improve memory is rational.

We shall come back to the problem later. It is enough to point out here that ideas must be put into the mind with their possible relationships clearly recognized if these relationships are at some later day to be used productively in calling out the ideas. It is therefore important, when an idea is given, so to store it up in the mind that it shall be flexible and ready. One is tempted even at this stage of the discussion to point out that much of what has been said about the doctrine of formal discipline has been utterly at sea because it has not been based on this conception of the way in which ideas ought to be given. If ordinary school training does not transfer from one field of experience to another, this is not due to the inability of the human mind to transfer its training. The lack of transfer is in many cases due to the clumsy, stereotyped way in which ideas were put into the mind. The absence of general ideas and general habits of thought resulting from school work is due to poor teaching rather than to any limitations of the mind. Knowledge that does not transfer is inflexible and inert. It is badly remembered and was badly acquired. It shows that the mind is capable of taking in highly specialized ideas; it does not show that the mind is incapable of generalized experience, for generalization is seen to be dependent on the arrangement or organization of experiences.

15. Retention

[SEASHORE, Carl E., Psychology of Musical Talent, pp. 236-237. Chicago, Silver Burdett Co., 1919.] (Partly adapted from James.)

We must not think of the mind as a storehouse of experiences such as images, ideas, thoughts, feelings or acts; nor may we regard the brain as a file of negatives, any one of which may be printed from at will; yet something is retained in enormous