their account. In many instances this was indicated by the comments on the papers. But even this difference in viewpoint alone does not explain the extremely high or extremely low marks. For example, one teacher gave the paper a mark of 50 and said that he had deducted 4 points for spelling. Another marked it 45 and stated that he had made no deduction for the poor form. Still another one marked it 75 including a penalty for form or 85 excluding a penalty for form. Furthermore, the amount that was subtracted for careless make-up ranged from 3 points in the case of one teacher to 13 points in the case of another. (8: 258)

Scales of measurement are being developed in various subjects. If reliable comparative measures of the achievements of various classes, schools, and systems are to be obtained, it is obvious that more reliable methods of rating these achievements must be secured than are provided by the ordinary systems of grading and marking. In order to secure more reliable objective scales and methods of measurement, a number of investigators have been at work for several years devising them for the various subjects. In the case of elementary-school subjects, C. W. Stone, working under the direction of Professor E. L. Thorndike, produced in 1908 standard tests for sixth-grade arithmetic. Work along this line has been carried still farther by S. A. Courtis, who has developed a series of tests and standards in arithmetic for all grades, which can be purchased and used to advantage by any school official. In 1910, Thorndike published a scale for the measurement of handwriting, and Ayers published another scale for the same subject about the same time. Thorndike also published a scale for drawing in 1913.

Example of scale for judging compositions. In the case of high-school subjects the most interesting development is the "Scale for the Measurement of Quality in English Composition" worked out by M. B. Hillegas in coöperation with Thorndike. This scale consists of sample compositions of various degrees of merit, arranged in order and graded from

o to 100. The following are examples of three grades in the series:

[Sample composition of grade] o

Dear Sir: I write to say that it aint a square deal Schools is I say they is I went to a school. red and gree green and brown aint it hito bit I say he don't know his business not today nor yesterday and you know it and I want Jennie to get me out.

[Sample composition of grade] 37

SULLA AS A TYRANT

When Sulla came back from his conquest Marius had put himself consul so sulla with the army he had with him in his conquest seized the government from Marius and put himself in consul and had a list of his enemys printy and the men whoes names were on this list we beheaded.

[Sample composition of grade] 83

VENUS OF MELOS

In looking at this statue we think, not of wisdom, or power, or force, but just of beauty. She stands resting the weight of her body on one foot, and advancing the other (left) with knee bent. The posture causes the figure to sway slightly to one side, describing a fine curved line. The lower limbs are draped but the upper part of the body is uncovered. (The unfortunate loss of the statue's arms prevents a positive knowledge of its original attitude.) The eyes are partly closed, having something of a dreamy langour. The nose is perfectly cut, the mouth and chin are moulded in adorable curves. Yet to say that every feature is of faultless perfection is but cold praise. No analysis can convey the sense of her peerless beauty. (3: 214-218)

Such a scale makes it possible for a teacher or an investigator to rate or grade compositions in an objective way that anyone familiar with the scale can understand. For example, the teacher, after reading a student's composition, would say, "This is most like number 83 in the scale," and grade it 83.

Such a method of grading, when perfected, should produce much less variation in the ranking of papers by different judges than does the ordinary method investigated by Elliott and Starch. Moreover, it tends to include in the standard of grading the fundamental aspects of composition instead of merely including such minutiæ as spelling, punctuation, and indentation, as described on page 499. For improvements upon the Thorndike-Hillegas scale see number 5 in the bibliography at the end of this chapter.

Teachers should study technique of measurement. — The last five years (1909-1914) have witnessed enormous progress in the development, by experts, of such methods of measuring the results of teaching-methods that are impartial, objective, precise, and subject to verification by any competent observer. The beginning teacher may not be very much concerned with the use of these methods at first, but after he has developed control of the ordinary routine of teaching, he ought to train himself in the use of these methods, in order that he may secure reliable measures of the efficiency of his own teaching.

Conclusion of discussion of measuring results. In this chapter we emphasized the necessity of developing a special and reliable technique of measuring the results of teaching. This technique should frequently be applied in the classroom by the teacher, in order to demonstrate to himself and to the students just what progress they are making. Each student should be told how his achievement compares with the total achievement of the class, but comparisons between individuals should be avoided. To be reliable and satisfactory, the measures of achievement should be impartial, objective, and precise as far as possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

General discussions.-I. AYERS, L. P. Measuring Educational Processes through Educational Results. School Review, May, 1912, Vol. XX, pp. 300–309. A very readable brief account of recent developments.

2. BOBBITT, F. The Supervision of City Schools. In twelfth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. (The University of Chicago Press, 1913.) Pp. 15-50. The best nontechnical general interpretation of recent attempts to measure results.

3. THORNDIKE, E. L. Education. (The Macmillan Company, 1912.) Pp. 212-228. Brief, nontechnical, concrete discussion of recently developed scales for measuring results in various subjects.

4. THORNDIKE, E. L. Principles of Teaching. (A. G. Seiler, 1905.) Pp. 257-273. Best brief discussion of general principles of testing in teaching.

Special studies. -5. Harvard-Newton Composition Scales. The Harvard-Newton Bulletin No.2. (Harvard University, September, 1914.) Presents five scales designed to measure efficiency in description, narration, exposition, argumentation, and reproduction.

6. HILLEGAS, M. B. A Scale for the Measurement of Quality in English Composition by Young People. Teachers College Record, September, 1912, Vol. XIII, pp. 331–384.

6a. JOHNSON, F. W. The Thorndike-Hillegas Scale. School Review, January, 1913, Vol. XXI, pp. 39-49. Criticism based on experiments with the scale.

7. STARCH, D., and ELLIOTT, E. C. Reliability of Grading Work in English. School Review, September, 1912, Vol. XX, pp. 442–457.

8. STARCH, D., and ELLIOTT, E. C. Reliability of Grading Work in Mathematics. School Review, April, 1913, Vol. XXI, pp. 254-259.

9. TUFTS, J. H. Present Problems of Instruction in The University of Chicago. The University of Chicago Magazine, December, 1910, Vol. III, pp. 58–86.

CHAPTER XXIII

ORGANIZED OBSERVATION OF TEACHING

Main points of the chapter. I. In order that the practical applications of the principles of method may be made clear to students, it is desirable to organize systematic observations in connection with courses in method.

2. Such observations may serve either as illustrations of principles previously discussed or as the basis for deriving these principles.

3. An outline of questions is printed, which takes up most of the topics treated in preceding chapters and may be adapted to a variety of situations.

Observation essential to show applications of theory. Perhaps the most instructive method of studying the general principles of method in normal-school or college classes is to take the whole class of prospective teachers to observe a lesson taught by a fairly skilled or competent teacher, and then to discuss the observed lesson from the standpoint of the general principles which have been studied or which are to be studied. In the case of prospective teachers such observations are almost essential in order that the principles which are under discussion may not remain purely abstract theory to them. Even in the case of experienced teachers it is often very illuminating to have it demonstrated that nearly all the questions of method that might be raised in connection with observed lessons do depend upon fundamental principles, and, furthermore, that having these principles in mind will enable them to analyze, interpret, and criticize teaching more skillfully. Unfortunately, much of our actual practice in teaching, even by skilled teachers, is