are given both in numbers and in percentages. Questions misunderstood are listed as omitted. The general conclusions drawn from this table and from the comments which some of the psychologists added to their answers may be stated as follows: 1. The two extreme views for and against disciplinary values practically no longer exist. As the question now stands, as transfer of training, the psychologists quoted here almost unanimously agree that transfer does exist. 2. A large majority agree that there is a possibility of negative transfer, and of zero transfer, caused by interference effects. Professor Thorndike is of the opinion that negative transfer is comparatively rare and can be avoided by proper methods of training. 3. Very few if any experiments have shown the full amount of transfer between the fields chosen for investigation. The reason for this is to be found in the imperfections of the experimental setting. Of the defects mentioned in Statement II, absence from the training of the factors most favorable to transfer is the one most generally considered important, though strong emphasis is placed in several instances upon the inadequacy of the tests. 4. The amount of transfer in any case where transfer is admitted at all, is very largely dependent upon methods of teaching. This is probably the strongest note struck by the psychologists in their comments. Twelve of them out of twenty-four make some explicit reference to the matter. 5. A majority of the psychologists, judging from their remarks in connection with statements III, IV, and VII seem to believe that, with certain restrictions, transfer of training is a valid aim in teaching. 6. Transfer is most evident with respect to general elementsideas, attitudes, and ideals. These act in many instances as the carriers in transfer. Often they form the common element so generally held to be the sine qua non of transfer. Twenty-two of the twenty-four psychologists express the opinion that special training in connection with these elements has general value; and one of them, Professor Sanford, adds: "This I believe to be true, and to be the basis of the generally held belief among practical teachers of the existence and value of 'formal training.'' [5] The Replies of the Psychologists.-In the following replies of individual psychologists, the Roman numerals refer to the corresponding statements formulated in section [3] above. J. R. ANGELL. I. I regard this as a substantially accurate statement. II. This also seems to me to be a correct formulation, with particular emphasis on the point (c). III. This formulation seems to me to be a little vague, although I am not disposed to take exception to it. My own formula would be stated in terms of the attitude of attention and the undoubted ability to develop these essential attitudes in ways which are widely useful over great varieties of subject-matter. IV. This, I think, is a defensible statement. V. This formulation seems to me correct, although it is rather more conservative than I should put it, in that it seems to confine negative transfer to "auxiliary habits." I should regard the negative relations as extending even beyond this region. VI. This is a theoretically possible condition which presumably rarely occurs. VII. I subscribe entirely to this statement. W. C. BAGLEY. I, II, IIb, V, VI, VII. Yes. II (a) Perhaps. II (c) To some extent. IV. Perhaps. The evidence from the experiments is clearly in favor of a certain amount of transfer. In my opinion, the possibilities of transfer are increased by the kind of teaching that makes the student conscious of the procedure as such, and keenly appreciative of its value as a general procedure. The theory of "identical elements" I regard as sound-but it is not rich in pedagogical suggestiveness. The theory of transfer through "concepts of method," and "ideals of procedure" furnishes a definite suggestion for teaching. The two theories are not inconsistent with one another; a person who has gained an understanding and an appreciation of a procedure will not be limited to the "identical elements" which come by accident; he will search for identities -for places at which the procedure may be applied. STEPHEN S. COLVIN. I. Yes. II. I find it difficult to answer this question. It does not seem to me that transfer can be said to take place from one field to another in general but only in specific instances. It often happens that tests measure the true amount of transfer in any particular experiment, but that these results cannot be generalized, and consequently the true amount of transfer under various circumstances cannot be Isaid to have been found. III, IV, V, VI. Yes. VII. Yes, these are general attitudes, dispositions, prejudices, etc. CHARLES H. JUDD. I, III, V, VI, VII. Yes. I find it impossible to answer questions II and IV. There are some fields in which the amount of transfer under given conditions has been established, and I do not believe that the particular qualifications which you have enumerated are especially significant. There seems to me also to be in number IV the necessity of referring to methods of teaching, as I have indicated, rather than particular traits. I find it very difficult to answer these questions because I do not think they are formulated so as to bring out the chief problems involved. I do not think that any subject transfers automatically and in every case. The real problem of transfer is a problem of so organizing training that it will carry over in the minds of students into other fields. There is a method of teaching a subject so that it will transfer and there are other methods of teaching the subject so that the transfer will be very small. Mathematics as a subject cannot be described in my judgment as sure to transfer. All depends upon the way in which the subject is handled. My answers ought then to be qualified in terms of this general position. I have attempted to discuss the matter fully in a chapter in my Psychology of High School Subjects, and I prefer very much to use the phrase which I have there used. Transfer is a form of generalization, and training can be given so as to encourage generalization, or training can be of such a type as to hinder generalization. GEORGE TRUMBULL LADD. I. Yes, either positive or negative. I doubt its ever being zero. No influence on mental life can become zero. II. All three considerations (a), (b), and (c), will act as handicaps. III. Experimental control would be almost sure to show a "substantial amount" of transfer, though the amount and the method might be difficult to fix with exactness. IV. Yes, undoubtedly. V. Yes. Indeed, it is likely that where any system of rather complicated character is persistently used some of its effects will tend to establish habits that in and of themselves will be of a negative or destructive character. Education requires a sort of constant "making and breaking of the cake or customs." VI. As I have said I doubt the possibility of a real "zero," though as nearly as we can get at the truth the positive and negative, or favorable and unfavorable, effects of the methods employed may apparently about balance each other. VII. Undoubtedly, yes. R. M. OGDEN. The above seem to me to be fair statements. While some are obviously more significant than others, I believe I should be able to defend them all. W. B. PILLSBURY. II (b), II (c), V, and VII. I regard these as established. There is little general agreement on this whole topic, still less, if one means by transfer the effect of classroom work in any subject upon general ability or effectiveness in any other relation. All agree that habits may be trained and that many habits can be used in different connections; whether a child would reason better in politics because he has had a thorough training in mathematics, for example, is not proved by any actual work or measurements so far as I am familiar with the literature. DANIEL STARCH. I, II, V, VI, VII. Yes. II (a). No. II (b) and (c). Yes, in part. III. A larger transfer would probably be found, but whether it would be "substantial" would have to be determined. IV. Yes, but it would depend upon the amount of transfer and the time and effort involved. LEWIS M. TERMAN. I, V, VI. Yes. II, II (a), II (b), II (c). Sometimes one, sometimes another factor has prevented us from getting the real facts; (a), (b) and (c) are only part of them. III. All depends on how related the field was. IV. Yes, probably. VII. I agree with what seems to be the intended meaning of this. "Almost anything else"-a little strong. E. L. THORNDIKE. I, IV, VI, VII. Yes. II. The precise amount of transfer from one field to another has not yet been found by experiment, but the experiments give the best present expectations in the matter. II (a), II (b), II (c). I don't know about these. III. "Substantial" too vague. V. Negative transfer may take place, but this seems to be rare, and may probably usually be avoided by the choice of right methods in training. VI. or if two functions have zero or nearly zero community. JOHN B. WATSON. In regard to I, I should say that there is transfer of training in this sense, in learning Russian I learn to use the dictionary, to sit still for an hour and work at a given problem, etc. When I come to study German, exactly the same type of behavior is involved. There is no transfer in any sense which has that meaning, but a part of a learning process may be demanded in some other act of skill. I certainly agree to this. In regard to III my answer on I above to some extent answers this. The trouble is you have asked the question so that it should be answered in terms of some kind of mental content. In regard to II, I should answer in the affirmative that no two acts have been scrutinized well enough when X has been learned before Y to show just how much of the activity involved in Y had already been learned in X. In regard to II (c), I would say that our tests are at present totally inadequate for making the measurements sought for. Furthermore, I am absolutely sure that any such test is totally irrelevant on the practical side. The elementary processes involved in mathematics have to be taught regardless of the question of transfer. In regard to IV, my feeling again is that an answer is not relevant to the problem. If it refers again to training in mathematics I gladly put myself down as affirming that even if there is no transfer at all such training is a valuable educational asset. V and VI are unanswerable. In regard to VII if I know what you mean at all I assent most heartily. I think you mean that the mathematical behavior, that is, the ability to add sums, subtract, multiply, determine interest rates, etc., is so universally demanded of all developing and developed human beings that training in such behavior is essential regardless of whether or not that training may influence other training for good or bad. I heartily agree with this. R. S. WOODWORTH. I, II, II (a), II (3), II (c), III, V. Yes. |