E

DUCATION has been defined as a process of bringing about desirable changes and preventing undesirable changes in human beings. To understand this process and to direct it properly, we depend on the science of Biology, the science of Psychology, and the science of Sociology. When we rely on our scientific Biology for the development of physical powers, for the establishment of hygienic living conditions and proper health habits, education in that respect may be said to be scientific. When our methods of instruction are simply the effective utilization of the laws of learning as established by the science of Psychology, the teaching process may be said to be scientific. When our moral standards with which we try to stimulate youth are derived from a sound science of Sociology, the educative process is to that extent scientific.

Passing from a consideration of scientific education in its broader and more general aspects to the problem of special products, results and outcomes, we meet with a notion of scientific education in a more specific sense. Here we are dealing with scientific education in terms of methods of measuring particular products in that field. It is in that restricted sense that we interpret the question for discussion. We understand the phrase "science in education" to refer to the measurement movement in education and the resulting changes in educational methods, curriculum reconstruction, and school reorganization. By the measurement movement

is meant the measurement of intelligence or the objective measuring of brightness and mental development, and the measurement of achievement or the objective measuring of particular functions, skills, or powers, as for example, comprehension in reading, rate in writing, accuracy in the manipulation of number combinations. This is a scientific aspect of education in a limited and specific sense. The foregoing statements should not be interpreted to mean that there are no other products with which we are concerned in education. We are also very much concerned with such products as interests, ideals, attitudes, and appreciations although they do not lend themselves as easily to objective, scientific measurements. This point has been emphasized by Professor Robbins of the University of Iowa when he says: "We should not permit ourselves to fall a prey to the suspicion that whatever can not be measured and set down in mathematical terms must on that account be too vague to be worth serious effort."

With these preliminary remarks we proceed to consider the specific question, Whither is the so-called science in education leading us? Professor Ross in the chapter on "Discussion" in his book on Social Psychology points out that "in discussion three phases of conflict may be observed, corresponding to the possible relations between two incompatible beliefs or desires." He describes the three phases as follows: The first stage in which "A denies and op

poses B, but B does not deny and oppose A," the second stage in which "A and B mutually deny and oppose one another," and the third stage in which "A does not deny and oppose B, but B denies and opposes A." Nearly every important issue that has ever confronted the citizens of a democracy, where free and open discussion has been allowed to run its course, has passed through those three phases or stages of conflict, or is in the process of doing so-slavery, universal suffrage, woman's suffrage, universal education, co-education, industrial unionism, the peace movement, prohibition, evolution, and numerous other issues which will occur to the reader. In the measurement movement we may also discern these three phases of conflict or discussion. In the initial stages of this movement, A repre sents the school people of the country and B represents the advocates of scientific education. The conditions of the first stage of the conflict are described by Ayres in the Seventeenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Following a brief résumé of Dr. J. M. Rice's efforts at comparative testing, Ayres says: "Dr. Rice's work, however, did not meet with the approval of the educators of the day. The presentation of his results in spelling brought upon the investigator almost unlimited attack. The educators who discussed his findings and those who reviewed them in the educational press united in denouncing as foolish, reprehensible, and from every point of view indefensible, the effort to discover anything about the value of the teaching of spelling by finding out whether the children could spell. They claimed that the object of such work was not to teach children to spell, but to develop their minds! It was the issue between the investigator and the formalist in education, and the conflict that is still under way is the conflict that was then for the first time clearly defined."

About 1912 this movement had passed into the second stage of discussion, in which "A and B mutually deny and oppose one another," and is described by Ayres as

follows: "The meetings of the Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association afford an excellent index of the progress of the movement. Dr. Rice's report in 1897 was received in derision. The Philadelphia meeting in 1912, after a heated discussion, voted against measurement by a small majority, but two years later a committee on Tests and Standards made a favorable report which was adopted by a considerable majority."

At present we are in the third stage of discussion. The vociferous and vituperative critics of Dr. Rice no longer deny and oppose. They are satisfied to be let alone. The advocates of scientific education, leaders and followers alike, are in the ascendency and are evincing a more or less aggressive attitude. As proof of this we quote again from Dr. Ayres: "To-day tests and scales are used throughout this country and around the world. In England, Germany, and France, before the war, beginnings had been made. Scales for the measurements of Chinese writing and composition are in the process of construction. In Australia and New Zealand, in India and Hawaii and throughout the length and breadth of the United States and Canada, tests and scales are in daily service, proving valuable tools in the hands of those who know how to use them."

The question to-day then is not whether we can or should measure, but how accurately do we measure the functions, skills, and powers which we claim to measure. Now we are concerned in the movement of measuring in education with more than the problem of testing the children; we are also more and more concerned with the problems of testing the tests and interpreting accurately the results of our testing. Scientific investigators are trying to establish coefficients of correlations with respect to the validity and the reliability of tests. They are at work to find out whether the tests really measure the functions, skills, and powers which they were designed to measure and to find out

1 & 2 Seventeenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.

how consistently and how accurately the tests measure these functions, skills, and powers. The most significant evidence of the fact that we are in the stage of refining our instruments of measurements is to be found in a recent book by Truman Lee Kelley entitled "Interpretation of Educational Measurements," published by the World Book Company. I wish to quote a short paragraph from the preface of this book. "The claims put forward for the standardized intelligence and educational tests extend from the cradle to the grave. They have been mentioned seriously in connection with the selection of children for adoption and in choosing life partners. They have been charged with undermining democracy and have been hailed as of the greatest aid in solving the complex social problems of the present times. It is my thesis that these instruments are potent for good if intelligently used by honest, capable and socially minded counsellors, and it is the purpose of this book to offer certain guides in the interpretation of test scores and to make explicit the errors involved-all with a view to a more sane, a more widespread, and at the same time a more penetrating use of such measures.

"The most radical departures from the treatments of earlier texts dealing with mental measurements are, first, a study of achievement and intelligence measures in their mutual relationship and not of either the one or the other separately; second, an emphasis upon measures of reliability and an attempt to determine the trustworthiness of each and every conclusion reached; and, third, the publication of ratings for general excellence for purposes of individual measurement and diagnosis of all the well-known intelligence and educational tests."

The concern with the trustworthiness of our instruments of measurement is especially significant when we consider the fact that standardized tests are increasing in number at a tremendous rate. There are already on the market more than five hundred different standardized achievement tests. By this movement of testing the tests, all of those

five hundred or more tests will be carefully evaluated and rated. It is of utmost importance for those who use tests to have rather definite ideas of their exact ratings. To offset the dilemma which the above statements seem to suggest to those who are already sold to the testing movement, we should state that there are now fairly reliable instruments of measurement in almost all the principal fields of elementary and secondary education. This is rather conclusively established in the last two chapters of Kelley's "Interpretation of Educational Measurements," viz., the ninth chapter on "Judgments as to the Excellence of Tests when Used for Individual Measurements and Diagnosis," and the tenth chapter on "Classified and Graded Lists of Tests, Giving Reliability and Other Information."

Another question of interest under our topic is the following: How carefully do we measure when we have at our disposal reliable and valid instruments, and to what use do we put our findings? How carefully are tests selected? How scrupulous are we in the administration of the tests? Do we test, score, and pigeon-hole the results? Or do we test, score, tabulate the results, diagnose difficulties, propose remedies, teach again, and retest? If we are to reap the real benefits of the testing movement, we must scrupulously adhere to the second alternative.

To answer more directly and definitely, however, the question, Whither is the socalled science in education leading us, we must turn to a consideration of the tangible results of the measurement movement—to changes in school organization, in curriculum construction, in teaching methods. We must turn to the new educational practices as evidenced by the new educational terminology. Many notions or concepts underlying the numerous changes in education could be mentioned. We shall refer to only a few that are most indicative of modern trends in education. And here we come first of all upon the phrase "individual differences" and its modern connotation. A leading psychologist has said that the new

meaning that psychology has given us of individual differences constitutes one of psychology's principal contributions to education during the last decade. Intelligence testing has thrown the problem of individual differences into bold relief. As a result of these changes the child now assumes a more central position in the educative process. The child, and not subject matter, has become our chief concern, our main problem. Another change resulting from our study of individual differences is classification into homogenous groups, or if you object to classification, you may choose the practice of indeterminate assignments made to heterogeneous groups in such a way as to challenge as many capacities and interests as the heterogeneity of the group may demand. From this new conception follows also curriculum reorganization problems as suggested by differentiated curricula. All of the above are evidences of efforts that are being made to meet the varying needs of individuals who differ greatly in abilities.

The use of achievement tests has also yielded many new practices. As a result of this use we have the familiar cycle-pretesting, teaching, and testing. We have also the very interesting practice, of diagnosis, or the process of analyzing functions so as to determine the constituent elements, followed by testing to determine the particular elements in which any given child is lacking, and following this step in turn with prescriptions of remedial measures. All of which simply means that we are trying to place the emphasis where the emphasis needs to be placed. Instead of groping blindly we are working with our eyes open in our efforts to realize our educational objectives. It is needless to add that the above statements are simply a few suggestions indicating the direction toward which scientific education is pointing.

Before concluding the discussion of this topic we wish to raise a series of questions. We shall not try to give specific answers to the questions. We are proposing them rather to stimulate thought and to provoke discussion. Does scientific education or the scientific method in education tend toward determinism? Has that method inherent in it elements of fatalism? Does the giving of intelligence tests and the derivation of I. Q.'s tend toward snobbishness on the one hand and hopeless yielding to one's fate on the other hand? Does it result in cocksure and arrogant leaders in some cases and unintelligent and blind followers in other cases? Is it incompatible with our fundamental notions of human relationships? Does it jeopardize democracy? Are there dangers ahead in this method for "homo ubiquitus"?

The answers to these questions depend upon the use that practical school men make of their findings resulting from measurements in education, and the practices that they inaugurate on the basis of the same. They depend upon the sanity with which they interpret the significance of I. Q.'s; upon the wisdom with which they determine classifications of homogenous working groups and upon the rigidity to which they adhere to the scheme; upon their sagacity in administering differentiated curricula; upon their skill in diagnosis and their careful planning of remedial measures; upon the conscientious advice they give to boys and girls in guiding them into vocations for which they are best fitted by aptitudes, capacities, and interests.

Upon the practical school administrator then rests very large the answer to our questions. In the last analysis the practical value and the future trends of measurement in education depend upon the wisdom, attitudes, and ideals of the practical schoolman.

I

N PRACTICALLY every institution of higher education will be found students who, in their freshman year, cannot or do not meet the standards required by the institution. This condition is less marked in private schools whose prestige is sufficient to permit careful selection of applicants. It is more marked in schools supported by public taxation, as in these schools the only scholastic or intellectual requirement is the possession of a diploma from an accredited high school. But however rigid may be the entrance requirements, there will still exist the student who, for some reason or other, does not succeed in his college career. For such students, most schools have adopted some form of probation system. Probably, without exception, the avowed aim of probation is to awaken the student to his condition so that he may right-about-face and re-establish himself in the good graces of his hoped-to-be alma mater.

Until recently it has been believed that putting a student on probation was all the responsibility that the institution could be expected to assume getting off probation was supposed to be a matter of individual responsibility for the unfortunate student-a decrease in the hours of work allowed being usually the only administrative measure. This belief was based on the assumption that the student fails because he does not try and

that all that is needed for correcting the difficulty is to call his attention to the fact by putting him on probation. But it is beginning to be felt by many that perhaps the student does not profit by probation as has been supposed that merely putting a student on probation may not mean that he will realize his mistakes, correct them and restore himself to good standing in his university.

The present study was made at the Ohio State University for the purpose of discovering, if possible, if the probation system in force functions as it purports to function; that is, if it really saves to the university the failing students who would otherwise be eliminated: or, expressed from the viewpoint of the student, if it acts as a sufficient stimulus to enable him to blot out his past bad record and to continue in his college course to graduation.

According to the present system of probation at Ohio State University, a student is placed on probation who, during any quarter, fails to earn credit hours in excess of the number of hours for which he is scheduled or who fails to pass in at least twothirds of his work. A student may also be placed on probation by the Executive Committee for unsatisfactory work. Students who fail to come up to the requirements which caused them to be placed on probation