all of his special memories. They first of all tested immediate retention by determining the compass of retention of numbers, letters, words, nonsense syllables, stanzas of poetry, and selections of prose. Then they tested permanent retention in the genuine learning of nonsense syllables, poetry and prose; and finally a special investigation of visual memory was made. After the chief sorts of memory in unpractised individuals had thus been determined quantitatively, the drill experiments began. Only a single type of memory was trained, the mechanical memorization of nonsense syllables,-and the training was continued through thirty-six consecutive days. At the end of this period, they again made a cross-section through all of the varieties of memory present in the individual in order to discover whether these other memories had profited from the training. Then they again trained certain of the observers for eighteen, others for thirty-six days, in the mechanical retention of nonsense syllables; and then once more a quantitative determination of the special memories was made.

Now these experiments show that all of the sorts of memories were considerably improved by mere drill in the learning of nonsense syllables. Even a function which is so different from genuine memorization as the immediate retention of non-significant impressions had been considerably strengthened. Purely visual memory had been improved by the learning of nonsense syllables, as had also the learning of abstract prose selections,a function which is utterly different from the practiced function; and the memorizing of poetry had also been improved.1 This, to be sure, establishes only the fact that there is such a thing as a general memorial training, and that our whole memory is improved when we train it with any sort of material. It does not, however, determine to what cause this fact is due, whether to an improvement of certain general mental factors such as attention, which may be of indirect advantage in all learning; or to the existence of a general internal relationship among all of the special memories, in virtue of which every training of one memory brings with it a concomitant training of all other memories; or to the existence of a general memorial function. . . .

Coover and Angell 2 have recently investigated this problem anew. In experiments which dealt with related mental func

1 Ebert and Meumann, Uebungsphänomene im Bereiche des Gedachtnisses, Leipzig, 1904.

2 Coover and Angell, "General Practice Effect of Special Exercise," American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 18, 1907, pp. 328-340.

3

tions, they found that the effects of practice may be shown to be transferred from trained to a non-trained function. For instance, one's discrimination of brightnesses is improved by a training in the discrimination of pitches; and training in certain complex reactions is transferred to other reactions. These authors refer the phenomenon of transfers to an improvement in certain cöoperating factors, such as habituation, a more economical adaptation of attention to the stimuli and an increased concentration or a capacity to ignore distracting influences and accessory circumstances during the act of observing. This seems to me to leave the main problem still unsettled; but so far as pedagogical practice is concerned, Coover and Angell's investigation establishes the existence of a transfer of training, a result which has a purely practical significance. Winch went a step farther in his investigation of transfer of training in school-children. In his first series of experiments, with girls whose average age was thirteen years, he showed not only that practice in the learning of poetry transfers to the learning of history, but that the transfer is present in high degree in the majority of pupils. In a second series of experiments, memory for geography was considerably improved by practice in the learning of poetry. Winch's chief result is thus expressed: "Training which is acquired through the memorizing of one sort of subject matter may be transferred to the memorizing of other sorts of subject matter whose nature is certainly diverse from the first." In these cases the investigation dealt with the existence of transfer in verbal memorization. And the question arises as to whether "rote memory," or the mechanical remembrance of verbal material, transfers to "substance memory," or the remembrance of significant material. Winch answers this question in the affirmative. Boys and girls, ten to twelve years of age, improved their memory of the essential content of a significant text by mechanically learning verbal materials; not only did practice in mechanical learning improve "substance memory" but the amount of improvement was sometimes greater in the latter (unpracticed) case than in the former (practiced) case. This investigation proves that the transfer of memory training occurs in children as well as in adults.

The student of pedagogy, however, is primarily interested only in the fact that such a general training of memory is

3 W. H. Winch, "The Transfer of Improvement in Memory in SchoolChildren, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 2, 1908, pp. 284–293.

possible. And in consequence of this fact he may make, on behalf of the schools, a renewed demand for memory exercises which shall aim to improve memory itself, and which shall, in that sense, constitute a formal training of memory. Let us point out once more that this does not mean a demand that for purposes of memorial training the schools shall resort to the use of material which is itself valueless, such as nonsense syllables; it only means a demand that in learning the materials which are now prescribed by the school curriculum memory may, and indeed must, receive a specific training.

13. The Experiment of Scholckow and Juda [JUDD, C. H., "Relation of Special Training to General Intelligence," Educational Review, June, 1908, Vol. 36, pp. 28–42.]

The experiment involved the ability to hit a target under water and was concerned with the effect of the knowledge of the principle of refraction upon this ability. Judd explains the transfer secured upon the theory of generalization. We have here a matter of great importance for education; it is in the ability to generalize, and to apply general principles, that we may hope to achieve much that is best in education.

One group of boys was given a full theoretical explanation of refraction. The other group of boys was left to work by experience without theoretical training. These two groups began practice with the target under twelve inches of water. It is a very striking fact that in the first series of trials the boys who knew the theory of refraction and those who did not, gave about the same results. That is, theory seemed to be of no value in the first tests. All the boys had to learn how to use the dart, and theory proved to be no substitute for practice. At this point the conditions were changed. The twelve inches of water were reduced to four. The differences between the two groups of boys now came out very strikingly. The boys without theory were very much confused. The practice gained with twelve inches of water did not help them with four inches. Their errors were large and persistent. On the other hand, the boys who had the theory, fitted themselves to four inches very rapidly.

The theory of generalization that has been advocated by Judd as the best explanation of transfer of training has been

described at some length in his Psychology of High School Subjects, pp. 412-414. In the opinion of some psychologists there is no necessary opposition between this theory and Thorndike's theory of identical elements. The two theories supplement each other. The theory of identical elements makes the discussion of transfer concrete, and the theory of generalization emphasizes the conscious recognition of the identical elements in as many situations as possible.

In the words of Dr. Judd:

The important psychological fact . . . is that the extent to which a student generalizes his training is itself a measure of the degree to which he has secured from any course the highest form of training. One of the major characteristics of human intelligence is to be defined by calling attention, as was pointed out in the chapter on science, to the fact that a human being is able to generalize his experience.

. . The first and most striking fact which is to be drawn. from school experience is that one and the same subject matter may be employed with one and the same student with wholly different effects, according to the mode of presentation. If the lesson is presented in one fashion it will produce a very large transfer; whereas if it is presented in an entirely different fashion it will be utterly barren of results for other phases of mental life. It is quite possible to take one of the objects of nature study, for example, and to teach it in such a way that it becomes an isolated and utterly formal possession of the student. This has been illustrated time and time again by the instruction which has been given in birds and plants. A teacher can teach birds and plants in such a way as to arouse a minimum of ideas in the student's mind. The training may be as formal in these content subjects as it ever was in language instruction. The same subject matter may be taken by a different teacher, and under other methods can be made vital for the student's whole thinking. Thus the teacher who is dealing with birds as a subject of nature study and secures a lively interest on the part of his students for the world in which these birds live, through an examination of the structures and habits of the birds, will have in this subject matter one of the most broadly interesting topics that can be taught. In exactly the same way a teacher who knows how to make use of the materials given in a Latin course may render this subject very broadly productive, as

contrasted with the teacher who merely gives the formal aspects of the subject. Formalism and lack of transfer turn out to be not characteristics of subjects of instruction, but rather products of the mode of instruction in these subjects.

14. Transfer from the Standpoint of Association [REED, H. B., "Associative Aids: I. Their Relation to Learning, Retention, and Other Associations; II. Their Relation to Practice and the Transfer of Training," Psychological Review, 1918, Vol. 25, pp. 128-155, 257-285, 378-401.]

A most exhaustive, critical analysis was made by Reed of all the experimental studies that had been made relating to the subject of transfer of training. In addition he repeated several of the original experiments and also performed a new set of experiments which he devised. His study is an important contribution to the subject. His own experiments tested transfer from the standpoint of association. He believes there is transfer of effects from one activity to another when associations are made relating to them. His point of view may be well summarized in direct quotations from his two monographs:

In any case, the spread of improvement from a special function is not general, but it is very specialized and affects only such other special functions that are very similar to the one specially trained. The result of the test experiment in regard to the transfer of training is that the findings of Ebert and Meumann and the conclusions based upon them, that there is a general memorial function and that special training in one function improves the memory in general, are not confirmed. Nor is their theory confirmed that transfer from one function to another is in proportion as the functions are allied* (p. 331). Training in card sorting does not improve ability to typewrite. Training in estimating areas 10-100 sq. cm. does not improve ability to estimate similar areas over 200 sq. cm. in size. Training in estimating lines .5 to 1.5 inches long does not improve ability to estimate objects from 2.5 to 8.75 inches long when the latter consists of such things as envelopes, brushes, and wrenches. Training in estimating four intensities of sound does not improve ability to estimate the extent of arm movement.

4"A Repetition of Ebert and Meumann's Practice Experiment in Memory," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1917, Vol. II, pp. 315346.